USDA Forest Service: Rocky Mountain Research Station, Bitterroot National Forest The University of Montana School of Forestry

Inside

(continued on page 5)

The Case for Research:

How It Makes a Difference to Managers

Janie Canton-Thompson, Technology Transfer Specialist and

EcoReport Editor, RMRS, Economic Aspects of Forest

Management on Public Lands, Missoula, MT

“It goes back to relationships between managers and the

research community if we’re

going to make progress at

all,” stated Kathy McAllister,

Deputy Regional Forester for

the Northern Region.

Recently, I interviewed

McAllister about interaction

between researchers and

managers. Does that

interaction make a

difference? She began by

telling me about her great

working relationship with the

North Central Research

Station, while Supervisor of

the Superior National Forest.

A few years later she joined

the Northern Region

leadership team, only to

discover an equally

flourishing relationship

among Northern Region

managers, Rocky Mountain

Research Station (RMRS)

researchers, and The

University of Montana.

Relationships are what

make their collaboration successful. As partners, they jointly

contribute resources to solve management predicaments.

BEMRP is a perfect example. “That group is looking at issues,

thinking about solutions, and trying them out on the

ground....People see value in the work. It’s a relationship

issue—Forest Service and University scientists understanding

what managers’ problems are and helping find solutions to

issues that, in many cases, apply any place in the Region. That

• Station Director’s Editorial .... (p. 2)

• Philosophy of Management..... (p. 3)

• Recovery in the Bitterroot........ (p.8)

• Research Highlights ............... (p. 11)

• The “Spotlight” ...................... (p. 18)

Kathy McAllister (r) and Sandra Evenson

during a general management review of

the Lewis and Clark National Forest.

Photo courtesy of USDA Forest Service.

relationship is, I think, right where it needs to be. I don’t have

to be engaged in it every day to keep it going.”

Collaboration is not without challenges. Completion of

peer reviewed research projects may take years, but managers

need questions answered

weekly, even daily. Timely

access to scientific resources

keeps managers current with

best science. “[Researchers]

recognize we need as much

information as we can get as

quickly as possible, and

they’re willing to give us

[good findings as soon as

they become available.] We

need to be understanding.

It’s important for researchers

to have time to perfect their

research and managers to

have information to draw conclusions and

create policy.”

By law, managers must use the best

available science for decisions. “We can’t

afford not to take advantage of the most

current information, and we can’t afford

to not understand it as it was put together

and meant to be understood.” What about

research not yet available in peer

reviewed publications? Environmental

Impact Statements may take years to

complete, during which new scientific

knowledge accumulates. McAllister likes to handle this

challenge by calling researchers for immediate advice,

allowing long-term research projects to continue and ultimately

verify interim conclusions. Nevertheless, science is

just one piece of

managers’ puzzle.

Kathy McAllister, Deputy Regional Forester for the

Nothern Region, USDA Forest Service. Photo courtesy of

Forest Service.
2

Marcia Patton-Mallory, Station Director

for the Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Photo courtesy of USDA Forest Service.

Station Director’s Editorial

Marcia Patton-Mallory, Station Director

RMRS, Fort Collins, CO

We of the Rocky Mountain Research

Station have completed our Strategic

Framework (a long-range plan) for the next

decade. During the past 2 years we listened

to our stakeholders and discerned where we

can make the most significant contributions

to natural resource management in the

Interior West. In addition to updating our

mission and vision, we have stated our

values and identified six focus areas to

guide decisions about program priorities.

Our mission is to develop and deliver

scientific knowledge and technology that

will help people sustain our forests,

rangelands, and grasslands. Our vision is

that our science and technology will

provide society with options to achieve

sustainable use and appreciation of forests and rangelands. Our

values include: Quality Science that is objective, unbiased,

credible, and independent; Quality Service that is responsive,

timely, relevant, and customer-focused; and Quality

Relationships with partners and employees.

Five program focus areas will guide our decisions about

future research and development programs:

The Rocky Mountain Research Station

Strategic Framework

• Changing Ecosystems: Productivity,

Risks, and Uncertainties

• Conflicting Values: Effects on

Natural Resource Use and

Management

• Wildland Fire: Responsibilities,

Risks, and Benefits

• Healthy Environments: Water

Quality, Water Quantity, and Clean Air

• Wildlife and Fish Habitats:

Restoration and Maintenance

A sixth focus area will be

Communication with our Stakeholders.

We will build on existing strengths and

explore new ways of transferring our

science and technology, with special

emphasis on electronic media.

Need for high quality science to inform decision makers in

the Interior West has never been greater. The Rocky Mountain

Research Station will continue to play a key role in addressing

these issues through growing partnerships and collaborative

efforts with universities, other federal agency researchers, and

natural resource management agencies. The complete text of

our Strategic Framework is available at www.fs.fed.us/rm/

main/strategic_plan.html.

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: jgjones@fs.fed.us

Sue Heald, Forest Planning Officer, Bitterroot National Forest

1801 North 1st St., Hamilton, MT 59840 (406-363-7142)

e-mail: sheald@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
3

Philosophy of Management

Janie Canton-Thompson, Technology Transfer Specialist and

EcoReport Editor, RMRS, Economic Aspects of Forest

Management on Public Lands, Missoula, MT

Remember when you were in school, and you sometimes

desperately wished your classroom was outdoors? Many

organizations are making that wish a reality, establishing

Learning Sites—natural outdoor classrooms for students of all

ages—in locations throughout central and western Montana.

Supporting the concept, representatives of BEMRP participated

in the Montana Ecosystem Management Learning Center

Program’s (MEMLCP) summer meeting. Held June 28-29,

2002, on the Bitterroot National Forest, the meeting

highlighted activities occurring on MEMLCP’s 12 affiliated

Learning Sites. These sites offer a fascinating story of

ecosystem management practices in a variety of ecosystems on

public, state, and private lands. Learning Sites are a vital part

of a growing effort to provide conservation education to all

comers. MEMLCP members actively cooperate with other

natural resource, conservation, and environmental education

programs at local, state, and national levels.

Attendees participated in two field trips that showcased

learning sites, one established and one proposed. Peter Kolb,

The University of Montana School of Forestry Adjunct

Professor and Montana State University Extension Forester,

together with assistance from Brooke Thompson, retired

Bitterroot Forest Fire Management Officer, is expanding and/or

developing these sites with partial funding from BEMRP.

Initially, participants journeyed through Lick Creek

Demonstration/Research Forest, a part of the Bitterroot

National Forest. Established in 1992, this area has hosted a

wealth of biophysical research that is being applied to

management of lower elevation ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir

forest types. Proposed new attractions for Lick Creek include

Lick Creek Campground Nature Trail and Lick Creek

Montana Ecosystem Management Learning Center

Program Efforts in the Bitterroot

Ecosystem Management/Research Trail. The existing Lick

Creek Auto Tour is also being updated and expanded. The

objective of this Learning Site is for visitors to experience a

fascinating story of the interaction between natural processes

and human management and research, well documented for

nearly a century in this forest ecosystem. Lick Creek also

portrays the natural history and gradual transition between

ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forest types. Effects of

management goals designed to sustain old-growth ponderosa

pine versus natural Douglas-fir encroachment in the absence of

wildfires are readily evident.

Attendees visited a second proposed site, the Laird Creek

Forest Wildfire Learning Site, which covers forest types similar

to Lick Creek but with a recent wildfire twist. This site may

include interpretive trails and an auto tour through portions of

the Laird Creek and Bear Creek drainages, parts of which

burned severely in the Bitterroot wildfires of 2000. Visitors will

view and learn about different types of erosion and erosion

control practices; mosaic burn patterns produced by fire; human

interaction with natural processes; effects associated with a

wide range of wildfire severity; fire behavior factors like slope,

aspect, fuel, and wind; and impacts of forest management

practices on wildfire behavior, as well as gain a historical

perspective on the Bitterroot Valley.

Both the Lick Creek and Wildfire Learning Sites promise to

provide visitors with information and dramatic visual examples

of how natural processes like fire, wind, decay, insects, and

disease shape forest ecosystems. Visitors will learn how forest

managers take into account the incredible complexity of forest

ecosystems to practice good stewardship of our natural resources. They will be shown how management, informed by

research such as that sponsored by BEMRP, strives to ensure

benefits accrue to society and keep all aspects of the ecosystem

intact.

Greg Jones (r), BEMRP Program

Leader, and Carolyn Durgin,

MEMLCP Coordinator, at Lick

Creek Demonstration / Research

Forest, Bitterroot National Forest.

Photos by Janie Canton-Thompson.

MEMLCP field trip, Laird Creek,

Bitterroot National Forest.

MEMLCP field trip near Medicine Point, Bitterroot National

Forest. This area burned heavily in the year 2000 fires.
4

Philosophy of Management

Janie Canton-Thompson, Technology Transfer Specialist and

EcoReport Editor, RMRS, Economic Aspects of Forest

Management on Public Lands, Missoula, MT

Smoky skies from extensive wildfires, hillsides of

crowded spindly trees, insect infestations, choking ground

fuels—these kinds of forest health issues are currently

affecting many U.S. national forests. Not only that, but they

have become a priority of the President and have captured the

attention of many Americans who, like all of us, have values

and perceptions that color their sense of management options.

 Forests often become unhealthy when tree densities

increase beyond critical thresholds. Invader species and those

requiring fewer nutrients

and/or less water tend to

have a competitive

advantage. Individual trees,

starved for water and

nutrients, become less

resistant to natural

disturbances like fire,

insects, and disease, which

eventually kill many

weakened trees. Dead and dying trees, together with

undergrowth (vegetation beneath the forest canopy), combine

to provide excellent kindling and ladder fuels for wildfires,

allowing them to intensify and burn large expanses of the

landscape. While cycles of birth, growth, decline, and rebirth

occur naturally in forest ecosystems, human activities may

escalate or retard them. The question becomes not whether our

forests will experience cycles of overpopulation, decadence,

and decline, but rather what role values and other human

factors play—or should play—in this process. These cycles can

affect human communities in different ways, some of which

are very disruptive.

Responding to several years of extensive wildfires—and

their effects on our human, economic, and natural resources—

the President issued a Forest Health Initiative in summer 2002.

Deteriorating forest health, caused by natural cycles like

weather patterns and human activities like fire suppression, has

placed forest restoration among our top national concerns. One

means to improve forest health and reduce wildfire impact

severity is purposeful disturbance, or what we may call active

forest management. Let us look at the logic behind active

forest management (like fuel treatments to reduce forest

flammability) by attempting to answer some questions. For

whom, how, when, where, and why should we manage national

forests?

As human beings, we interpret everything in terms of

value systems. The desired type of management (disturbance)

or its absence is a function of a person’s value system,

informed by the understanding of how ecosystems work. Some

believe we ought to manage forests to improve biophysical

components and processes. Others desire forest management to

The Logic Behind Forest Management

sustain a supply of goods, services, and opportunities. Still

others want forests managed to permit natural processes to

proceed with little or no human intervention. In all cases, the

paramount objective in management is to meet needs and

desires of people. Left to its own devices, nature takes care of

itself everywhere and at all times through built-in responses to

natural processes and disturbances. Disturbances like fire,

weather events, earthquakes, volcanoes, insects, and disease,

filtered through human value systems, may appear

catastrophic. However, nature, abhorring a vacuum and

uncaring about time, implements its version of recovery that

may take centuries, or even millennia, to realize. Things

happen in natural systems regardless of whether humans

intervene. In terms of some

human values, failure to

actively intervene

sometimes places a natural

system at greater risk for

dysfunction than does active

management.

 Ecosystems will

function in the absence of

humans. Insects, disease, and fire will all serve to alter forest

ecosystems when the time is right. While ecosystems do not

require a human component to manage them, humans have

chosen to do so for millennia because they care about them

and highly value the products they furnish—wood fiber,

recreation, wildlife habitat, water, havens of rest, and spiritual

renewal. The list is endless. Clearly, humans manage forests

because they want to perpetuate certain values derived from

them, and these values are often issues of conflict and subject

to change, frequently on short notice.

Given that we manage forest ecosystems for the “good” of

human beings, let us ask some tough questions relative to

national forests. Can we do the wrong thing for the right

reason? Can we do the right thing for the wrong reason? How

much information do we need before we dare act? What do we

risk by delaying action? What if we are doing the best we can,

using the best information we have, and we still adversely

affect or lose some species? Nature itself loses some species

through a variety of circumstances. While we could ask many

more tough questions, it is important to consider answers to

these questions before we form expectations of forest

managers.

Consider the nature of human disturbance, or

management. Management of ecosystems is by nature an

iterative process because it involves feedback and correction.

Results are not perfect the first time we implement

management (and some might argue “never perfect” because

the “target” moves over time). Over time, we gain knowledge

and refine management activities to better achieve our goals

for forest ecosystems. Most agree that management works best

when we do not lose any pieces of the system by our activities.

Things happen in natural systems regardless of

whether humans intervene . . . Ecosystems will

function in the absence of humans.

(continued on page 5)
5

Figure 1. People’s core values, knowledge and understanding of

scientific facts, and identification with particular places influence

their management preferences for forest landscapes.

Philosophy of Management

With these thoughts in mind, consider again fire severity

and extent during the last few years. Nature does not care; it

works with what it has. Humans care. Think about the thinning

initiative proposed by the President to improve forest health.

Other management activities may also foster forest health,

including no-thinning, burning, no-burning, weed spraying,

no-spraying, and no action at all. All these activities have their

place in attempts to manage forest ecosystems for human

values. All work, more or less effectively, in some places in

some parts of some ecosystems at some periods of time. When

applying management activities, we need to keep in mind that

ultimately we are stewarding an ecosystem to provide humans

with more and better ways to realize their values, which are

often contradictory. Managers can offer all values to all people

but not in all forests, in all places, or at all times.

There are trade-offs, and few of us will get

everything we want. Only when we agree on

this, can managers begin to satisfy our

diverse values as they plan and

implement management

activities. Above all, remember

that when we take humans out of

the equation, there is no reason to

manage at all.

The Case for Research . . . (from page 1)

Sometimes it supports several different management actions,

leading to trade-off analyses with factors like biophysical

variables, societal demands, available staffing, and executive/

legislative mandates.

Solid relationships enable Forest Service research to make

a huge difference to Forest managers, according to McAllister.

For example, Missoula’s RMRS Wildlife Research Work Unit

helped the Northern Region diffuse a lynx management-related

controversy. “They were very good about giving us sound

objective science that we could base our policy calls on.”

Likewise, Northern Region fire management officers and fire

ecologists “have no qualms about reaching out to the Fire Lab.

If those relationships weren’t there we’d be in a terrible place.

Line officers take [research] and weigh it with lots of other

information to make policy calls,” added McAllister. “We in

NFS probably don’t appreciate research as much as we should

until we get into a crisis situation and need answers right now.

Then we go there and get answers we have confidence in.”

Vast wildernesses, lynx, whitebark pine, and grizzly

bears—“We have some of the last best places and special

plants and animals in the Northern Region. All the issues we

deal with are connected, so if we don’t continue to ask

questions and seek answers we’re not going to get any better at

doing what we do.” For instance, lynx conservation includes

snowshoe hare habitat improvement. But, improvement of hare

habitat may adversely affect whitebark pine and, in turn,

grizzly bears and Clark’s nutcrackers. The Region also has

opportunities to reintroduce prescribed fire in places without

much risk to human populations, a luxury unavailable to more

urban-based Regions. However, returning fire to these

ecosystems may enable exotic weed invasion. Herbicide

application for weed control has potential undesirable side

effects on animals. “That’s a huge responsibility for public land

managers, and we need good solid research. That’s going to

help the public have confidence that we’re not creating bigger

problems than we already have.”

All Forest Service managers grapple with social issues.

Managers may have the best science possible, but people may

not believe it. People may embrace the science but dislike its

answers. “What it gets down to is how much management

intervention will satisfy the public and how do we determine

that? That’s always the big question. What I might view as

acceptable somebody else will say is way too much, or not

enough.”

McAllister believes her agency could benefit from more

social science research. “Questions we have to answer today

are as tied to people as they are to anything else. It doesn’t feel

like we spend the proportionate amount of money on social

research that we do on biological research....We all get a say in

how we’d like public land to be managed. It’s not just what

science says we should do about it.”

 “We—researchers and managers— need to be able to call

upon each other for help getting our jobs done. That means a

District Ranger needs to be willing to help a scientist place an

experiment and help monitor and provide information. And,

that means scientists need to be able to take time to answer

today’s questions with some amount of reliability so we can

keep making the best management decisions.” Relationships

are the glue that holds the process together.

The Logic Behind Forest . . . (from page 4)
6

Philosophy of Management

Janie Canton-Thompson, Technology Transfer Specialist and

EcoReport Editor, RMRS, Economic Aspects of Forest

Management on Public Lands, Missoula, MT

Research indicates that thinning some forest types

typically improves their health and, together with treatment of

resultant slash, reduces fire risk. Recently, Kevin Ryan, a

Project Leader at Missoula’s Fire Sciences Lab and a wellknown fire science expert, clarified why one size does not fit

all when it comes to thinning.

As stand density increases, trees experience stress,

becoming susceptible to a variety of problems. When forests

are thinned, competition for light, water, and nutrients is less,

enabling residual trees to grow better, strengthen their defense

chemistry, and better resist insect and disease attack. Thinning

also “modifies stand structure, including distribution and

The Case For Thinning: One Size Doesn’t Fit All

An Interview with Kevin Ryan

amount of burnable biomass, reducing fire intensity under

severe weather conditions.”

 Foresters define thinning as “removing select trees to

improve the forest structure.” In pre-commercial thinning,

removed material, or slash, is left to decompose, treated by

burning, or mechanically removed for disposal. Commercial

thinning provides a product for sale. Foresters view logging as

only one of several forest thinning methods. The nature of the

thinning needs to be tailored to the individual forest.

Mechanical thinning utilizes chainsaws or other equipment

to process trees, and can achieve very specific stand structure

and composition. One may also thin through prescribed fire,

depending on forest structure, weather, and topography, but

usually with less precise results. Successful thinning with fire

depends on a large range in tree resistance to fire injury,

influenced by tree features like size, bark, and

crown characteristics. When the range is

narrow, fire alone is less successful because it

is less selective of trees that survive. Although

possible under certain circumstances, it is

often not practical to burn the huge area

needing treatment on the handful of days each

year when conditions are “just” right. “So we

have to do other manipulations like

mechanical thinning to get the prescription

window wide enough to have a feasible fuels

treatment program. The alternative is to wait

for the next crown fire.”

 The dominant reason to thin for fire hazard

purposes is to reduce the likelihood of crown

fires in ecosystems not adapted to this type of

burning, and where recovery will be slow, if

ever. “When crown fires occur, there is a

blizzard of embers, which typically causes

spotting well ahead of the main fire front.

There is rapid fire growth, and little ability to

take effective fire suppression.” If humans do

not thin forests, nature will do it by wildfires

or other natural processes.

 “You always affect fire potential if you

thin.” Slash usually needs to be treated to

avoid exacerbating fire problems. “Lop and

scatter” entails cutting slash into small pieces,

which decompose faster, and evenly scattering

them around the forest floor. Crushing slash

with mechanical equipment also reduces

severe fire potential. However, neither lop and

scatter nor crushing reduces fire potential as

much as removing thinned material by burning

or other means.

 Because the forest floor is exposed to

more sun and wind, the microenvironment of An old-growth ponderosa pine stand near Missoula, MT, pre-thinning (a) and

post-thinning (b). Photos by Mick Harrington.

(a)

(b)

(continued on page 7)
7

Philosophy of Management

thinned forests is different from un-thinned forests. This

typically results in more burnable days—“when it’s warm

enough, dry enough, and windy enough for fire to burn.”

Proper slash treatment in a thinned forest is critical to reduce

susceptibility to crown fire, and to make wildfires more

manageable and less damaging when they ignite during severe

weather events.

Wildfires in thinned forests with light fuels typically stay

on the ground rather than becoming crown fires. Surface fires

allow firefighters more suppression latitude. “That’s the payoff

in thinning—creating stand structures that won’t support crown

fires except under extreme conditions. When you have a crown

fire you get out of the way. Of course, there’s an old cowboy

saw: ‘There never was a horse that couldn’t be rode, and there

never was a cowboy that couldn’t be throwed.’ Even with

perfect thinning and fuels treatment, with a bad burning day a

fire may just blow right through treated stands.

And the cowboy just got throwed!!!”

A comprehensive research project

examining ecosystem responses to several

thinning methods is currently being conducted

at 13 sites across the U.S., including Lubrecht

Forest in Montana. However, the probability is

low that a wildfire will actually ignite in any of

these sites. The best way to learn whether

thinning is effective in reducing crown fire

potential would be to run a fire through each

study area once treatment is complete. “Not

many forest managers are going to be real

excited about having that experiment

conducted on their forest even though I believe

that to validate our assumptions, it needs to be

done. There are also those who want the study

replicated in their back yard or they won’t

believe it.”

Ryan proposes modeling to test thinning

effectiveness. “It allows us to conduct

experiments in a computer, rigorously testing

the logic to determine if the outcomes make

sense before we put treatments on the ground.”

Researchers are working on “a defensible

process for managers—which models to use

for what.” Ryan thinks we eventually need a

development and technology transfer plan that

takes the best available science and engineers

effective solutions to managers’ problems.

“I accept the basic premise that a manager

has an obligation to manage.” However, some

people do not believe we have the science

necessary to be effective, and opinions differ

on what ecological goals should be. Obviously,

we will never have all the answers. “Science is

open-ended, always expanding like the

universe. Can you get to the end of the

Case for Thinning . . . (from page 6)

universe and would you know when you got there? Research is

risky by nature. If I know the answer, it’s not research. But

managers need answers to manage. So, to provide the best

available science, we must include a caveat: ‘This answer may

work only—or work best—in certain situations.’ If one

believes doing nothing is better than doing something, science

can’t refute that. It’s a value.”

 “If I could leave one thought, it is that we have to be very

careful not to make a few simple rules about thinning and

move on. Professional managers must have latitude to use

judgment and allow science to continually improve that

judgment. If you codify anything into law, there’s no more

judgment, and it doesn’t matter what science comes up with.

Managers need the best available science for adaptive

management. Careful monitoring and evaluation means we’ll

do better and better. If that isn’t a fundamental cornerstone of

human experience I don’t know what is!” Clearly, one size

does not fit all cases, whether it is forest management, science,

or human values.

Thinning by fire in a Montana ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir stand.

Mechanical thinning in a Montana ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir stand.

Photos by Mick Harrington.
8

Sue Heald, Forest Planner

Bitterroot National Forest, Hamilton, MT

Rocky Mountain ecosystems evolved in the presence of

fire, and are adapted to this awe-inspiring force of nature. In

most cases, ecosystems recover naturally from changes that fire

initiates. So why did the Bitterroot National Forest choose to

manage some aspects of fire recovery, rather than letting nature

do the job? The answer ties to the interrelationship between the

forest and people who live on the landscape. In the immediate

aftermath of the fires, the Bitterroot Forest held many public

meetings and commissioned a survey of local residents to

understand how the public preferred to have the forest

managed following the fires. The public clearly expressed a

desire to see active management of recovery rather than

leaving it entirely to nature. This influenced the Forest in

deciding the balance between managing fire recovery and

letting recovery occur without a human hand. The decision was

to manage recovery on approximately 15 percent of the burned

area.

The Bitterroot fires of 2000 burned with uncharacteristic

high severity in much of the ponderosa pine type because of

fuel build-up following decades of fire suppression. Standreplacing fires burned overstory ponderosa pines over large

areas, destroying the source of seeds needed for natural

regeneration. In portions of the burns without seed sources, we

prescribed planting to ensure ponderosas returned to the sites.

At higher elevations, many large stands of immature lodgepole

pine burned, leaving areas with inadequate seed sources to

promote regeneration. We also prescribed planting for these

sites.

Another aspect of the Forest’s recovery effort involved

dealing with effects of roads on newly burned lands. The fires

removed vegetation from roads and skid trails that in some

cases had been effectively rehabilitated by vegetation growth

following past harvest activities. This created the likelihood of

increased sediment movement and erosion. In addition,

absence of live vegetation meant increased run-off, especially

the first couple of years after the fires. To handle increased runoff, we enlarged hundreds of culverts throughout the burned

area road system, which will improve fish passage and prevent

culvert blowouts that could deposit large amounts of sediment

in streams, detrimentally affecting fish species such as

cutthroat and bull trout. More than 150 miles of roads are

slated either for obliteration or placement in storage, with the

intent of further reducing sediment production. While fish have

doubtless evolved to handle sediment pulses associated with

large fire events, roads represent a condition with which fish

did not evolve.

Fire recovery also involved reducing fuels on 43,702 acres

of the burned area. This will prevent excessive fuel build-up

Why Manage Fire Recovery

in the Bitterroot National Forest?

Winter view of a burned area on the Bitterroot Forest that has

undergone fuel reduction.

 Photos courtesy of the Bitterroot National Forest.

A new fish passage culvert on the burned area of the Bitterroot

Forest.

Excavator obliterating a road in the burned area of the Bitterroot

Forest by reestablishing contours. (continued on page 9)

Recovery in the Bitterroot
9

Recovery in the Bitterroot

Sharon Ritter, Research/Management Coordinator, Bitterroot

National Forest and Bitterroot Ecosystem Management

Research Project (BEMRP), Hamilton, MT

Nestled into a sentence in the Winter 2000-01 EcoReport

is a curious phrase, “boundary spanner.” An image comes to

mind of a bridge between two countries. In a way, that is what

I am, a bridge between researchers and land managers.

My job as Research/Management Coordinator on the

Bitterroot National Forest started in 2001. The Forest and

BEMRP established my position because of increased interest

and funding for conducting research on the Forest, especially

in areas burned in 2000. While the Forest has long been a

focus of research, we suddenly had 60 field research projects.

This meant we would get some great, local information, but

there was the potential for problems: safety, damage to

resources, and Forest activities or studies affecting other

studies.

Starting in 2001, the Forest required researchers to have

Special Use Permits, and provide maps of study sites. This

allowed us to review study plans for ground-disturbing

activities that might affect sensitive plants or archeological

sites, and also look for over-lapping research plots. An

example of one problem that surfaced was when a researcher

played tapes of bird songs to see if this affected nesting

densities of other species. Another researcher had bird count

transects that overlapped the first researcher’s plots, and the

results could be affected. The maps also came in useful when

Forest employees came across study markers in the field and

wanted to know whose they were. They finally had a person

they could ask.

Another conflict was the presence of three research sites

Research and Management Coordination

on the Bitterroot National Forest

in areas we plan to treat for knapweed and other noxious

weeds. We are working to delay treatments there for a few

years until researchers’ fieldwork is done.

Safety was a big concern because of area closures due to

helicopter logging, logging trucks coming out of the burned

area, and millions of burned trees ready to drop limbs or fall

over at any time. In May 2002, we held a safety briefing for

researchers working in the burned area, and covered radio use,

necessity for hard hats, and how to identify hazard trees and

avoid flash floods.

Another big part of this position is getting research results

to people who need them—our public land managers and the

public. I gathered research papers from current and past

studies, arranged field tours with researchers and Forest

resource specialists, set up a 1-day conference in Hamilton,

helped set up a forum about noxious weeds, created a research

display, suggested articles to newspapers, put a list of research

projects on our website, and connected local groups with

speakers.

BEMRP, represented by the Bitterroot National

Forest, Rocky Mountain Research Station, and The

University of Montana, also acts as a bridge. It

creates opportunities for researchers and

managers to share ideas, needs,

information, and opportunities. Both

BEMRP and my position are unique in

this area, and provide a good model for

other partnerships. Building bridges

between researchers and land managers

promotes healthy forest ecosystems.

adjacent to private property in the wildland/urban interface,

and break up fuel continuity, allowing future fires to be

controlled with less risk to firefighter safety. We also focused

tree removal on areas prescribed for planting, so damage to

young trees caused by falling burned trees would be

minimized. Because of the expense of tree planting, managers

and the public wanted to protect that investment.

From the effects of altered fire regimes, to roads, private

property protection, and public values, the way people are

interconnected with Bitterroot Forest lands affected why and

where the Forest managed fire recovery. People will have an

opportunity to experience and compare the results of managed

and natural recovery processes, which will influence their

opinions on appropriate reactions to future fires. Our goal is to

handle fire recovery in a way that best meets the needs of all

components of the forest ecosystem, including humans.

Why Manage Fire Recovery . . . (from page 8)

Six research study sites near Lake Como on the Bitterroot Forest.

In addition, this area has active forest management and

recreational use. Graphic courtesy of the Bitterroot National

Forest.
10

Recovery in the Bitterroot

Janie Canton-Thompson,

Technology Transfer Specialist and

EcoReport Editor, RMRS, Economic

Aspects of Forest Management on

Public Lands, Missoula, MT

Forest Service researchers have

a champion in Dave Bull, recently

appointed Supervisor of the

Bitterroot National Forest. Dave

moved frequently growing up, and

wherever the family went he was

drawn to trees. His family often

vacationed in New Mexico’s

national forests. “I can remember

seeing those guys driving by in

green trucks and thinking, ‘How do

you get one of those jobs?’”

Following high school, Dave

enrolled in pre-veterinary medicine at University of Texas,

eventually transferring to the University of Idaho to pursue a

forestry degree.

During college, Bull served on Forest Service fire and

timber crews. When offered a permanent Fire Control

Technician position at the Boise Interagency Fire Center, Dave

abandoned graduate school plans. From Boise, he accepted

assignments on the Ashley National Forest in Utah, eventually

serving in both timber and fire management on two different

districts. Here, he became acquainted with the Forest Service

research organization, working jointly to combat a mountain

pine beetle epidemic. Next came a job as sale preparation

forester on the New Meadows District in Idaho’s Payette

National Forest. While there, Dave attended the Forest

Engineering Institute at Oregon State University. Moving on to

Krassel Ranger District as timber, recreation, watershed,

wildlife, and fisheries staff officer, he took broad training in

forest ecological relationships, and earned the title of “certified

silviculturist.” Again, he worked with researchers, this time

facilitating a paired watershed study. When McCall and

Krassel Districts consolidated, Dave became timber

management assistant and participated in fire salvage work,

facing issues similar to those now on the Bitterroot. On the

Payette, he worked with research entomologists, applying

guidelines to stem a spruce bark beetle epidemic. Next stop

was Hahn’s Peak District, Routt National Forest, Colorado, as

a timber, recreation, fire, range, and lands staff officer where

he cooperated with Colorado’s Division of Wildlife to institute

a prescribed fire program in oak brush.

 In 1990, Bull joined the Supervisor’s staff on the Caribou

Forest in Idaho, but soon was back on the Ashley, as Flaming

Gorge District Ranger. Here, he collaborated with Forest

Service Research social scientists to develop a strategy for

marketing services and opportunities. “We’re a public land

management agency with an obligation to manage in the public

interest. The way we are able to acquire that information is

through research. It’s something I strongly support.” In 1999,

New Forest Supervisor at the Helm

Dave became a legislative affairs

specialist in the Washington Office.

Here he worked with Office of

Management and Budget, General

Accounting Office, top

Congressional staff, and

Congressional Committees to

provide information for decisions or

legislation.

 The Bitterroot National Forest

welcomed Bull as its 14th Forest

Supervisor in July 2002. “This part

of Montana has always been high

on my list of places to live and work

in.” He previously worked with

Bitterroot Forest staff while in

Washington, helping to resolve

issues resulting from the fires of

2000. “I feel privileged to have this opportunity to work with

the employees and residents of western Montana. I want to be

a good land steward of the Bitterroot National Forest.”

When it comes to job qualifications, Bull has plenty.

Among them are great breadth of forest management

experience, an ability to listen, and skill at synthesizing

information. “I like lots of information to make decisions. One

thing I’m hoping employees bring me is good, factual

information and research to help me make decisions.” He

exhibits an open communication style and appreciates human

interaction. “I enjoy discussing issues with people. I know

there are many sides to issues, and I’m interested in hearing

them. What I’ve seen here is a tremendous work ethic and

people very involved in their communities. I think the Forest

Service is a positive force in any community, especially in

rural areas. The Forest has a wonderful reputation of sharing.

It’s a very open, trusting workforce, a great place to work.”

Bull appreciates the warm welcome he has received on the

Bitterroot. “I feel like I’ve been included right from the get-go

working with communities on [Forest] issues. It’s been very

rewarding in the few months I’ve been here.” He marvels at

the well-developed collaborative groups. “The kinds of energy

folks spend helping us resolve issues on the Forest has been

overwhelming. That’s a tremendous opportunity for us to do

activities and [manage fire recovery] that build on

recommendations they provide. This is a great [research]

laboratory to help with issues surrounding large fires and

recovery.” A challenging issue concerns the Forest workforce,

now geared toward fire recovery work but without sufficient

funding to support that work.

BEMRP and other RMRS research are second to none in

Bull’s mind. “It’s an astounding example of cooperation—the

number of projects and range of interest they represent. It

would probably take the whole National Forest System to

equal what we’ve got on the Bitterroot, based on what I’ve

seen. I’ve always had an interest in applied research like I’ve

seen in action here. I hope we can continue to provide

Dave and Robin Bull. Dave is the new Forest Supervisor

of the Bitterroot National Forest. Photo courtesy of the

Bull family.

(continued on page 13)
11

Research Highlights

Janie Canton-Thompson, Technology Transfer Specialist

and EcoReport Editor, RMRS, Economic Aspects of Forest

Management on Public Lands, Missoula, MT

“It dawned on me that trees know what to do; it’s really

people that are the issue,” commented Jim Burchfield,

Director of the Bolle Center for People and Forests at The

University of Montana. Fostered by rich experiences in the

academic world, Peace Corps, and Forest Service (where he

worked in silviculture, policy analysis, and social science),

Burchfield’s quest is understanding relationships between

people and forests. Specifically, he wants to know why people

participate in voluntary advisory organizations devoted to land

stewardship.

Burchfield recently completed BEMRP-sponsored

research on Montana’s watershed councils. These are local

voluntary groups composed of government officials and

private citizens who collaborate to resolve watershed issues.

Burchfield’s familiarity with the Bitterroot Water Forum

initially motivated his study. Incorporating citizens’

knowledge and interests into addressing common watershed

problems like riparian management, wildlife habitat, water

quality, and water allocation, the Forum serves as a model for

future natural resource voluntary advisory bodies.

 Burchfield had several purposes for his research. First, he

wanted to understand the councils’ effectiveness. Were they

meeting expectations and having “on-the-ground” benefits to

natural resources? Next, why do people volunteer time and

energy to participate? Finally, what factors contribute to

success, and what barriers hinder effectiveness?

In a two-phase study, Burchfield combined qualitative (indepth informal interviews) and quantitative (survey)

methodology with a literature review to produce his findings.

Both interviewees and survey respondents thought watershed

councils have positive effects on multiple natural resource

characteristics (riparian vegetation, water quality, and so

forth). Council participants felt they receive three personal

benefits that extend beyond improving the natural resource: 1)

acquaintance with agency representatives responsible for

watershed management, 2) better understanding of major

watershed problems, and 3) getting to know other watershed

landowners.

Participants mentioned several factors contributing to

council success. Council leaders, or watershed coordinators,

helped most. “This is the most important person. They bring

the resources together. Their energies and knowledge are

vital.” Local knowledge and experience ranked second.

“Having local residents in their group leads people to realize

they can make accomplishments.” A third factor was access to

quality information—science, rules and regulations—and

grant money. “They learn the rules, and what opportunities

there are for funding to do this work. The watershed

coordinator is a doorway to this information that can help

people solve problems.”

 Burchfield expressed surprise that finances and process

issues like level of formalization, group charter, and operating

procedures ranked relatively low among success factors,

Watershed Councils: Voluntary Shepherds

of Montana Watersheds

although not for all participants. The chief barrier was inability

to include all stakeholders.

Unwillingness to participate is a barrier common to all

voluntary organizations and collaborative groups. When people

count the cost of participation, some cannot afford it because of

competing demands. Second, some simply do not want to

participate. “They don’t view this as the best avenue to get

what they want, and don’t want any kind of collective response

to what goes on.”

Diversity of participants within watershed councils offers

an opportunity for cross-boundary work and accomplishment

of common objectives across ownerships. Participants learn

how ecosystems function, obtain high quality information, and

Students participate in a Know Your Watershed workshop in

Montana’s Bitterroot Valley. Photo by Marilyn Finley.

Field trip with the Tri-State Water Quality Council on Threemile

Creek in Montana’s Bitterroot Valley. Photo by Josette Hackett.

(continued on page 13)
12

Robert D. Pfister, Emeritus Research Professor, The

University of Montana, School of Forestry, Missoula, MT

Vegetation classification and mapping are an integral part

of landscape assessment and planning. Several approaches to

identifying uniform pieces of landscapes (patches, stands, or

polygons) and assigning “vegetation type” labels to them are in

widespread use. BEMRP has funded continuing research to

help standardize some major descriptors of vegetation—

floristic (pertaining to plant species and their distribution)

composition, density, stage of succession, and vertical canopy

structure—as part of an “Ecosystem Diversity Framework”

described in the Winter 2000-01 EcoReport and 1999 BEMRP

Symposium Proceedings. Although the conceptual framework

is well accepted, the road to standardized methods of

classification and mapping is slow traveling.

The Federal Government Data Committee (FGDC)

undertook the first large-scale attempt to standardize

classification and mapping standards for 18 agencies. The

The Road to Vegetation Classification

and Mapping Standards

FGDC Vegetation Subcommittee established a “National

Vegetation Classification System” (NVCS), published in the

1997 Federal Register. NVCS provides standards for the upper

five levels of a physiognomic (general growth form and

appearance) hierarchy and recommends two lower floristic

levels—Association (a recurring plant community with

definitive characteristics and specific attributes) and Alliance (a

grouping of Associations) (fig. 1). Next, the Subcommittee

asked the Ecological Society of America (ESA) Vegetation

Classification Panel to develop standards for Alliance and

Association. The Panel has been working on that effort,

providing revised drafts on an annual basis. Because Alliances

and Associations are not fully developed at this time, it is

difficult to use them operationally for vegetation classification

and mapping necessary in planning ecosystem management at

multiple scales.

Pilot studies conducted by the Northern Region and

current mid-scale vegetation mapping efforts have

BOOK

CORNER

Ronald H. Wakimoto, Professor, The

University of Montana, School of Forestry, Missoula, MT

For the past 30 years I have overheard fire managers

saying, “If the public only understood the fire problem in the

West they would do things differently.” While our scientific

investigations about fire in the forest have continued, public

attitude concerning wildland fire seems to have more to do

with “Smokey Bear” than all this past research. Flames in Our

Forest was clearly written to provide both the concerned

citizen and professional forester with fire-related history,

ecology, and management strategies. The book is a nontechnical account of fire in lower elevation, fire-prone forests

of the West. For me, the keys to the book’s relevance and

credibility are its readability and its wonderful mix of current

scientific literature and experiences and reflections of a wellrespected scientist.

Stephen Arno, a retired Rocky Mountain Research Station

Fire Sciences Lab researcher, and Steven Allison-Bunnell, a

science writer, begin the book by giving a brief story of their

lives and how they developed a perspective about fire that led

to their coming together to write this book. Together, they

weave a story of wide-scale forest changes, accompanying fire

behavior changes, and society’s responses to such changes

over time. Fire as nature’s creative force is presented in

chapters concerning tree, shrub, and wildlife adaptations to

fire.

The authors lay out a convincing case that “one size

doesn’t fit all” by presenting examples of different forest

types and different roles of fire on the landscape.

Environmental concerns about fire’s impact on soil, water, and

air are addressed with examples, personal observations, and

conclusions from scientific studies. Fire history, a subject

Arno is renowned for, reinforces the past role of fire in the

forest, with examples of credible science applied to

reconstruct the “Old Forests” of the West. Using this

reconstruction, the authors lead the reader to logical social

responses to the current biophysical setting. A brief history of

the struggle of the “light burners,” urban interface fuel

management issues, and forest restoration is also offered.

Throughout, the authors use historical facts and settings, their

own value statements, and scientific literature to increase the

reader’s knowledge and understanding of social issues that

limit and constrain current fire management programs on

public lands.

Flames in Our Forest will make an interesting and

informative addition to anyone’s library. It will enlighten,

entertain, and inform any reader with sage thoughts about

flames in our forest.

Arno, Stephen F.; Allison-Bunnell, Steven. 2002. Flames in

Our Forest. Washington D.C.: Island Press. 245 p. ISBN:

559638826.

Book Corner: A Review of

Flames in Our Forest

Research Highlights

(continued on page 13)
13

improve stewardship of

public and private

components of these systems.

 Although not an answer

to all problems at all times,

on focused areas, councils do

make a positive difference.

“Our conclusion is that

watershed councils have a

role in resource management

issues. Contributions may be

modest, but are positive and

can be significant in building

trust and advancing complex,

integrated ecosystem-scale

programs. They have periods

of energy and activity, and

quiet periods where they

don’t really do much.” This

trait typifies voluntary groups

and could be the subject of

future research.

 This research is unique

because it attempts to

understand council participants themselves, rather than just

leadership. Burchfield became acquainted with many people

involved in watershed councils, and believes he was successful

in promoting credibility and trust among all. He also helped the

Montana Watershed Coordinating Council (a clearing house

and service organization for Montana watershed councils)

update its membership database.

 “Don’t give up on these voluntary organizations. They

might seem low level, very informal but they have a role.

People find them important enough to use their time and stay

engaged. Citizens care about the land! Forest managers need to

devote adequate time and remain engaged with these groups.

The cost to not participate might be higher than the cost of

participating. It’s the changing nature of public land managers’

jobs to have relationships with people who reside in the area.

Relationships take time; they take constant nurturing.”

EcoReport

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

demonstrated the need to develop standard criteria for stand

type classification. In 1998, The University of Montana,

Rocky Mountain Research Station, and Northern Region

developed a draft manuscript with proposed standards.

As Forest Service ecologists, especially in the Northern

Region, tried to work with NVCS and ESA’s evolving

Alliance and Association standards it became apparent the

Forest Service needed to develop its own additional standards

to meet business requirements. In August 2002, the agency

sent out a USDA Forest Service National Draft Vegetation

Classification and Mapping Technical Guide for review; it is

currently being revised. Cooperative, exploratory efforts of

BEMRP and the Northern Region have made major

contributions to this national effort.

In fall 2002, the Northern Region Vegetation Council

hosted an excellent workshop and field exercise/discussion to

review several vegetation classification variables and

alternative standards for classification. Continued evaluation

and testing of the USDA National Guide and Regional

methods are planned for the coming year.

Publication of test results and continued collaboration

will help move us toward formal operational standards for

vegetation classification and mapping that are efficient,

reasonably accurate, and most appropriate for specific

information needs.

opportunities for researchers, and technology transfer.” He is

really enthusiastic about BEMRP’s new research agenda. “A

landscape scale project is exciting to me. I would hope we can

integrate several different facets into the project, including the

social sciences.”

When he is not engrossed in his new job, Bull is busy

enjoying his family and taking in the Bitterroot Valley’s

recreation opportunities. His family includes his wife, Robin (a

Hamilton elementary school teacher), and four daughters, two

of whom are still at home. Nevertheless, when it comes to the

Forest Service, Dave “bleeds green.” “Being a career civil

servant, I’m here to serve and help the public reach the goals

and objectives they have. Making a difference, being able to

live in a place like this, and working with some great people—

that’s my definition of success!”

New Forest Supervisor . . . (from page 10)

Watershed Council . . . (from page 11) Road to Vegetation . . . (from page 12)

Jim Burchfield on the bank of

the Missouri River. Photo by

Neil Moisey.

—— Physiognomic Classification ——

Class – e.g., Closed Forest

Subclass – e.g., Evergreen

Group – e.g., Temperate and Subpolar Evergreen

Subgroup – e.g., Natural/Seminatural

Formation – e.g., Rounded Crown

—— Floristic Criteria ——

Alliance – e.g., Pinus ponderosa

Association –

 e.g., Pinus ponderosa/Symphoricarpos albus

Figure 1. From Vegetation Classification Standard, published in

June, 1997.
14

Research Highlights

Janie Canton-Thompson, Technology Transfer Specialist and

EcoReport Editor, RMRS, Economic Aspects of Forest

Management on Public Lands, Missoula, MT

“It’s always been exciting to try to understand not only the

beauty of trees on an aesthetic and spiritual level, but also from

a scientific perspective. What do they do with water and

nutrients? How do they use light? It’s fascinating to think

about the complexities inside this living organism.” Captivated

by water, Greg Peters wants to understand how it contributes to

tree growth and functioning. University of Montana Professor

Anna Sala’s tree physiology studies piqued his interest, leading

him to select her as his thesis advisor and secure project

funding through BEMRP.

Peters proposed to examine stands within a second-growth

ponderosa pine forest to discover how trees in treated and

untreated sites were performing long-term, and explore how

different management

treatments were impacting

pine physiology. “We knew

fire historically played an important role in ponderosa forests,

but didn’t know whether trees really care about fire, or if they

just like having fewer neighbors? Does fire help or hurt trees?”

Lick Creek Demonstration/Research Forest, within the

Bitterroot National Forest, was a perfect study site, with

comparable stands of 1) untreated (control), 2) thinned-only, 3)

thinned and spring-burned, and 4) thinned and fall-burned

second-growth ponderosa pine. Treatments were done as part of

the first BEMRP study between 1992 and 1994. Peters’ project,

an exploratory case study, examined tree physiology by

measuring soil water volume, soil nitrogen compounds, tree

water potential, and tree photosynthesis.

During summer of 2001, Peters regularly inserted a probe

into 72 pipes, driven into the ground across his study site, and

measured soil water volume at three soil depths. He found no

differences among control, thinned, thinned and spring-burned,

and thinned and fall-burned stands.

The more soil nitrogen available, the better trees

photosynthesize. Peters collected soil samples across his site

and analyzed the presence of important nitrogen compounds.

Although his findings were not striking he discovered greater

soil ammonium in treated stands and slightly lower nitrate

concentration in burned units.

Water potential measurements assess tension on tree water

columns. Too much tension (created by insufficient water

supply) on water columns causes trees to close stomata (pores)

and cease photosynthesis, stymieing growth and health

maintenance processes. During summer mornings, Peters

sampled foliage (needles) at mid-canopy on each tree’s south

side to ensure measurement consistency and obtain actively

photosynthesizing foliage. Although all stands contained similar

soil water volumes, trees in control stands (those receiving no

treatments) experienced greater water stress because they

competed with more neighbors for water. Needle bundle

analysis indicated control stand trees had lower photosynthesis

rates. Peters found no significant difference in water potential or

photosynthesis rates among trees within treated stands.

Peters indicates stand density is the key explanatory

variable in his study. “Trees prefer fewer neighbors,” so lower

density improves tree water status and allows them to

photosynthesize longer during the day. “The research suggests,

in stands of this type, thinning treatments benefited secondgrowth pine in the long-term, but burning added in either spring

or fall produced no long-term benefit or detriment to their

health. This was perhaps most important—stands were thinned,

then fire was added, and 8 or 9 years later, we found no

evidence that fire hurt the trees. It suggests it’s not detrimental

to add fire to restoration thinning.” Managers can thin for

restoration and use fire under specific conditions to achieve

broader ecosystem benefits beyond tree performance.

Peters’ research is unique because he studied physiology of

second-growth ponderosa pine instead of focusing on oldgrowth stands, and found encouragement for restoring historical

conditions to such stands. Examining tree physiology about 10

years after treatments, his study offered a better assessment of

long-term health and performance of treated stands. Peters’

thesis, completed in December 2002, is available in The

University of Montana library.

4A

Impacts of Treatments on Life Functions

of Second-Growth Ponderosa Pine

Lorna McIntyre assembling telescoping pruners for foliage harvest at

Lick Creek Demonstration/Research Forest, Bitterroot National Forest.

Greg Peters with a Sentry 200

Troxler used to measure volumetric

percent soil water content.

Photos by Greg Peters.

Inserting probe in a PVC pipe

enables correct measurement.
15

Research Highlights

Dean E. Pearson and Yvette K. Ortega, Wildlife Biologists,

RMRS, Wildlife Ecology in Rocky Mountain Landscapes,

Missoula, MT

Exotic plant invasions threaten native ecosystems

around the world, but invasive plants are a particular

problem in arid habitats that characterize much of the

western United States. In the Rocky Mountains, ecosystem

management goals directed at restoring fire-adapted forests

are challenged by invasive plants, which proliferate in the

wake of disturbances (including prescribed fire and thinning)

caused by management activities. For ecosystem

management to be successful, it is critical that we understand

the impacts of exotic plant invasions and associated control

strategies on native plants and animals. Several collaborative

studies between the Wildlife Ecology Unit of the Rocky

Mountain Research Station and BEMRP are examining

effects of exotic weeds on native plants and animals and

effectiveness of weed control measures conducted in

conjunction with restoration efforts in fire-adapted systems.

Here, we present preliminary findings from research

examining effects of weed invasions and introduced

biological control agents on populations of the deer mouse

(Peromyscus maniculatus), a dominant native small

mammal.

Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) is one of the

most aggressive and widespread invasive species in western

Montana. Although herbicides are effective in reducing

spotted knapweed over small areas, they are neither costeffective nor feasible over vast acreages. To address this

problem, a biological control program was initiated in the

Effects of Exotic Plant Invasion and

Associated Biological Control Agents

on Deer Mouse Populations

early 1970s to control spotted knapweed by introducing

Eurasian insects known to feed on spotted knapweed in its

native range. Biocontrols have been remarkably successful

reducing some range weeds like St. John’s wort (Hypericum

perforatum) in California, but have not yet succeeded in

controlling spotted knapweed. As a result, some biocontrols

have become superabundant and now provide a food

resource for native animals.

Our research indicates the native deer mouse quickly

discovered that exotic gall flies, Urophora affinis and U.

quadrifasciata, introduced for spotted knapweed control,

provide an excellent food resource during long, harsh

winters. Deer mice have become aggressive predators of gall

fly larvae that overwinter in knapweed seedheads and are

capable of consuming hundreds of larvae per mouse per day.

This food resource, which did not exist in North America 30

years ago, now makes up 85 percent of deer mouse winter

diet. Furthermore, recent results show that gall flies

subsidize deer mouse populations during winter so that deer

mice are two to three times more abundant in knapweedinvaded grasslands than in native grasslands. Elevating

populations of a generalist rodent like the deer mouse has

potentially significant implications for native plants and

animals, and even humans, because deer mice are voracious

predators of native seeds and insects, and are the primary

carrier of the deadly Sin Nombre Hantavirus. Therefore,

elevating deer mouse populations could cause declines in

important plants and insects already negatively affected by

knapweed invasion, and could increase the prevalence of

Hantavirus. We are currently examining these and other

related hypotheses.

Deer mouse being bled (safe and sound) to test for Hantavirus. Photo

by Dean Pearson.

Deer mouse foraging for gall fly larvae on a spotted knapweed plant.

Photo by Milo Burcham.
16

Research Highlights

Alan Watson, Research Social Scientist, RMRS, Aldo

Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, MT

The Bitterroot River

flows past the towering

Bitterroot Mountains

(which form the heart of

Montana’s Northern

Rockies). Most of the

Bitterroot Range is

protected as wilderness, a

source of much of the

water flowing through the

otherwise arid Bitterroot

Valley environment.

Quality of life in the

Bitterroot Valley is high,

and deeply connected to

water resources and

naturalness of the

mountain landscape.

Prosperity of some economic sectors, aesthetic

beauty, and sense of place all seem to depend upon

water and other natural resources within the

Bitterroot National Forest.

Among the highest priority objectives for this

year’s research on the Bitterroot National Forest are

to 1) “Develop a basic understanding of the

processes and patterns that were historically present in riparian

areas and forest types at all elevations and how human

activities have affected patterns and processes in these forest

types” and 2) “Understand public values and how they change

over time relative to...past and present human

activities affecting resource management (such as

construction and management of roads and dams).”

Using these objectives, BEMRP has formed an

interdisciplinary science team to study hydrologic

and human connectivity associated with wilderness

dams.

 Most past wilderness research focused on

providing

wilderness

management

information

necessary to meet

the definition of

wilderness contained within

Section 2(c) of

the U.S. Wilderness Act

(Public Law 88-

577). There has

been little research to guide

implementation of

Section 4(d),

which deals with

special pro-visions. This section of the Act supplies general

direction on pre-existing legal exceptions such as use of

aircraft or motorboats; prospecting for minerals, water, or other

resources; maintenance of impoundments and transmission

lines; grazing of livestock; and permitting commercial services.

When legislation establishes protection for public lands under

the authority of the Wilderness Act, incorporating these special

provision guidelines is often quite controversial.

Kari Gunderson, an interdisciplinary resource management

scientist employed by Rocky Mountain Research Station to

support BEMRP research, has initiated a project to 1) develop a

historical account of the installation and maintenance of dams

that exist within wilderness boundaries, 2) provide educational

opportunities to BEMRP members about factors influencing

hydrologic connection across forest types, 3) develop

understanding of the role of water resources in Bitterroot

Valley quality of life, and 4) increase knowledge about local

residents’ awareness of the role wilderness dams and water

resources play in the area, their attitudes toward dam

maintenance, and their comprehension of the relationship

between quality of life and natural resource attributes of local

ecosystems.

Very little is known about local residents’ knowledge of

the connection among these dams, the values they associate

with wilderness, and the quality of life they enjoy. Obtaining

this knowledge could aid managers in making and explaining

decisions to various publics involved in review of management

actions on the Bitterroot National Forest.

New Publication Available

Robert D. Pfister, Emeritus Research Professor, The

University of Montana, School of Forestry, Missoula, MT

Ecosystem Management: Adaptive, Community-Based

Conservation, a new book from Island Press, was developed

as an outgrowth of 7 years of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

training courses, entitled “An Ecosystem Approach to

Conservation.” Its authors emphasize “application of the

sciences of ecology and conservation biology to real-world

problems.” Designed as a textbook for upper-level and

graduate student classes, the book has an accompanying

instructors’ guide. Based on its introduction and review of

illustrative case studies, I feel this book provides a good

general background for all involved in the complex process

of implementing Ecosystem Management (Cloth $40;

instructors’ manual (paper) $20).

Meffe, Gary K.; Nielsen, Larry A.; Knight, Richard L.;

Schenborn, Dennis A. 2002. Ecosystem Management:

Adaptive, Community-Based Conservation. Washington,

Covelo, London: Island Press. 313 p. ISBN 1-55963-824-9.

The Connection Between Wilderness Dams

and Life in the Bitterroot Valley

An interdisciplinary team

from the Bitterroot

Forest visits the Canyon

Creek Dam. Photo

courtesy of Bitterroot

Members of Mill Creek Irrigation District visit Mill Creek

Dam. Photo courtesy of Bitterroot National Forest.
17

Research Highlights

Elaine Kennedy Sutherland, Research Biologist and Project

Leader, RMRS, Ecology and Management of Northern Rocky

Mountain Forests, Missoula, MT

Most fire specialists attribute occurrence of large, severe

wildfires to exceptionally warm, dry weather and high

accumulation of forest fuels. Some evidence indicates fuels

management could reduce the probability of severe fire. Mick

Harrington and Duncan Lutes of the Rocky Mountain Research

Station’s Fire Lab will document the effectiveness of fuels

reduction on Sheafman Creek. In the watershed serving a small

community adjacent to the Bitterroot Forest, they are evaluating

surface, ground, and aerial fuels before and after thinning and

fire treatments on a site with high potential for severe, highintensity fire. Using these data, they will model wildfire

behavior and determine treatment effectiveness. This is one

example of how vegetation research sponsored by BEMRP is

providing vital information to the Bitterroot National Forest.

This research is conducted in partnership with the Forest, Rocky

Mountain Research Station, and The University of Montana (UM).

Poor condition of trees in dense ponderosa pine and western

larch forests contributes to fire risk, and insect infestation or

disease potential. Improvement of forest health via mechanical

thinning and prescribed fire is a national priority. Anna Sala and

Ragan M. Callaway of UM are continuing their Snowbowl oldgrowth research on the Lolo National Forest, evaluating how

understory thinning and various burning treatments affect tree

condition. Their research indicates the condition of old

ponderosa pine and western larch trees benefits from thinning

because more water and nitrogen are available (fire treatments

had no detectable effect). Similar work is underway to

understand how thinning and burning treatments affect seed

production. This type of evidence is necessary to determine

appropriate management of old stands.

When it comes to protection of fish habitat, providing

Do you ever wonder about meanings of terms used in ecosystem management? If so, visit BEMRP’s

glossary at www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecopartner. Note that some terms’ definitions change over time as new

information and policies develop. Periodically, we revise our web glossary page to reflect these changes. If

you desire to suggest new terms for our glossary, feel free to do so. In this column, as in previous years, we

feature more terms from our web’s glossary page.

Vegetation Science Research in the Bitterroot:

“So What?”—The Applicability of Research

“What Do You Mean By That?”

BIOPHYSICAL - Relating to biological and physical components of an ecosystem.

CANOPY - The part of any stand of trees represented by the tree

crowns. It usually refers to the uppermost layer of foliage, but it

can be used to describe lower layers in a multi-storied forest.

CANOPY CLOSURE - A synonym for “crown cover.”

CANOPY COVER - The proportion of ground or water covered

by a vertical projection of the outermost perimeter of the natural

spread of foliage or plants, including small openings within the

canopy. Note that total canopy coverage may exceed 100 percent

because of layering of different vegetative strata such as grass,

shrubs, and trees.

CROWN - The part of a tree or woody plant bearing live branches

and foliage.

CROWN COVER - The ground area covered by the crowns of

trees or woody vegetation. It is delimited by the vertical projection

of crown perimeters and commonly expressed as a percent of total

ground area. Crown cover measures the extent to which the

crowns of trees are nearing general contact with each other.

Martin Creek, a tributary of the

East Fork of the Bitterroot River.

Snags, large woody debris (along

the creek bank), and seral shrubs

resulted from a fire in the 1960s.

Measuring stream depth on the

Bitterroot National Forest.

management buffers in sensitive areas is appropriate—but how

wide should buffers be in different parts of mountain streams, and

how might that width change with different management

activities? To understand the relationship between disturbance

processes and riparian and stream habitats, Elaine Kennedy

Sutherland, Michael K. Young, Ethan Mace, and Emily K.

Heyerdahl of the Rocky Mountain Research Station are

comparing 13 biophysically similar drainages on the Bitterroot

and Lolo National Forests. They are relating disturbance histories

to riparian and upland forest structure, woody debris loading, and

stream characteristics. Ultimately, this information can be used to

determine where and what kind of management activities are

appropriate in mountain streams. Applied research projects such

as these are the key to good management decisions.

Photos by Ethan Mace.
18

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

Research Highlights

Janie Canton-Thompson,

Technology Transfer

Specialist and EcoReport

Editor, RMRS, Economic

Aspects of Forest

Management on Public

Lands, Missoula, MT

Alan Watson, Research

Social Scientist at the Aldo

Leopold Wilderness

Research Institute in

Missoula, was born to

study relationships

between humans and

nature. He was raised on a

Kansas farm where his

father bequeathed him only

a saddle and his spurs. His

Native American mother

instilled in him deep

cultural ties to freedom,

exploration, and nature.

Despite his rural

upbringing he experienced no early relationship to public lands

or wilderness for they were absent where he lived. After high

school, he opted to become a military intelligence analyst,

trained as a Thai linguist, and found time to manage an

Arabian horse farm on the side.

After the military, Alan went to Northern Virginia

Community College, then Virginia Tech, completing a B.S.,

M.S., and Ph.D. in forestry. During college, he prepared

himself for future work with public lands. Alan valued training

in both social and biological sciences to better understand

humans’ relationships to their natural environment, most

specifically wilderness. Completing his doctoral work, he

accepted a faculty position at Georgia Southern University but

—after much soul searching—Alan followed his heart and

became the only Research Social Scientist with the Forest

Service Wilderness Management Research Unit in Missoula

(now Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute). The

Institute is responsible for nationwide wilderness research for

the Forest Service, Park Service, Bureau of Land Management,

and Fish and Wildlife Service. “This is the center of the

wilderness universe, not just in the U.S. but internationally. I

first heard about Missoula in the context of wilderness. It’s a

good place to study and think

about wilderness.”

Alan studies the human

dimension of wilderness all

over the world, with ongoing

studies in Alaska, Canada’s

Eastern Arctic, Finland, and

South Africa. He is a

Fullbright Scholar, and helped

found the International Journal

of Wilderness, currently

serving as its executive editor

for science. Additionally, he

chaired the science section of

the World Wilderness

Congress in both India and

South Africa.

Despite his many

responsibilities, he places

BEMRP among his top

priorities and has hired an

assistant to devote full time to

BEMRP. “Wilderness is very

much an interdisciplinary

resource. I intend to bring a world perspective and broad

resources to benefit BEMRP and the Bitterroot community.”

Defining wilderness values broadly, internationally, and

cross culturally is Alan’s consuming interest. In South Africa,

he is applying a “mega-reserve” concept, looking at large

conservation areas, including people and their natural

environment. In the U.S., he is studying trust, commitment,

social responsibility, and public purpose in relationships with

public lands. Alan wants to know 1) how we should

differentiate public from private lands, 2) what our social

responsibility is across cultures and future generations, and 3)

for whose values public lands should be managed. “So it’s

relationships in a variety of ways — relationship to place,

relationship to activities, and how things like recreation fees

and the way we manage fuels are going to influence those

relationships—in contrast to a focus on transactions.

Relationships to public lands need to be explained in terms of

stakeholding in places, and management agencies need placebased planning methods. We’re not nearly as interested in

measuring customer satisfaction as understanding long-term

relationships between the public and public lands.”

Alan Watson “I Approach Work As A Calling,

Not A Career”

Alan Watson was born to study relationships between people and

nature. Wilderness, South Africa. Photo by Maretha Shroyer.

(continued on page 19)
19

Alan continued, “I have a personal motivation to

understand my own relationship with the environment. I’m

constantly struggling to articulate values that I or other people

attach to nature. I greatly value diversity. My personal reward

is learning constantly. I

went to college not to be

something but learn what I

could be. My primary group

of peer reviewers is future

generations. The pinnacle of

science is not just writing things I already know, but becoming

what I’ve written. That’s really exciting.”

Alan’s challenge is to bring social science to the “front

end” of ecosystem management. Alan believes strongly in

“kincentric ecology,” suggesting: “Humans and non-humans

through generations of co-existence have affected each other

from whatever starting point you want to imagine. We can’t

remove humans.” Thus, he is building a holistic, dynamic

model that looks at vegetation, landform, wildlife, and humans

relationally. As knowledge and society change over time,

values and decisions relative to environment change. Human

values, including relationship to place, need to be considered at

the front end of projects rather than as responses to already

proposed actions. Alan is excited about BEMRP’s commitment

to a multidiscipline, landscape level project, which includes

human relationships with the landscape at the beginning.

One might think Alan is all work and no play. Not so.

Alan, his wife, Cletius (a practicing horticulturist), and three

children live on an isolated 80-acre tract of land, which they

have in a Forest Stewardship program, managing for watershed

protection, wildlife, and timber. “I have a radiophone; when

you call me the horn honks. My phone’s in the truck.”

Interestingly, they have “a cabin” in downtown Missoula that

they call “Hellgate House.” “Whenever we want to get away

from it all—the woodstove and the snow plow and the

Who We Are . . . (from page 20)

replication and measurement of physical, ecological, and social

effects. The first step will be an integrated analysis of the

471,000-acre Bitterroot Front to identify effective locations for

this project, and possibly other vegetation-treatment projects

for future consideration by the Bitterroot National Forest.

Numerous models exist for analyzing different aspects of the

fuel treatment-scheduling problem, but vary in geographic and

time scales and differ in data needs. Currently, little

information is available on how to combine these diverse

models to best address the issues. BEMRP’s research/

management landscape project will evaluate the strengths of

various models in addressing Bitterroot Front landscape issues,

and design an analytical approach for resolving them.

Spotlight . . . (from page 18)

Research Highlights

generator and all those things—we go to town.” Finally, the

Watsons are a licensed foster care family for the Casey Family

Program. Clearly, service is a way of life as Alan serves people

and natural resources, both on and off the job.

When asked about his future, Alan replied: “I love my job.

I can’t imagine doing anything else. I’m the only person in the

world with this job. What I love about it is that I’m constantly

influenced by other people

and things I read. I’m

constantly becoming

somebody new. I’m going

to be somebody new next

year, and I can’t wait to see

who I am. I approach work

as a calling, not a career. And it’s broad. It’s international. It’s

dealing with future generations. It’s dealing with community.

I’m so lucky.”

I have a personal motivation to understand my

own relationship with the environment.

Horses in meadow, Bass Canyon, Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.

Photo by Janie Canton-Thompson.
20

ECO-Report

Bitterroot Ecosystem Management

Research Project

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

P.O. Box 8089

Missoula, MT 59807

Program Leader’s Note

Greg Jones, Research Forester and BEMRP Program

Leader, RMRS, Economic Aspects of Forest Management

on Public Lands, Missoula

BEMRP is now in year 10! It seems like only a year or two

ago when Clint Carlson and others wrote the proposal that

developed into BEMRP. Being the 10th year, it is only

appropriate to take stock of who we are, review

accomplishments, and discuss what lies ahead.

BEMRP, a multi-disciplinary partnership, conducts applied

research on a variety of topics, including vegetation

management, landscape analysis models and techniques,

wildlife ecology, human issues, and fire effects in support of

ecosystem management. It comprises five Rocky Mountain

Research Station (RMRS) work units located in Missoula

(Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Ecology,

Economics, Fire Effects, and Wildlife), and the Bitterroot

National Forest, Northern Region, and The University of

Montana. RMRS provides funding directly to BEMRP, but

partners also contribute personnel time and resources. The

partnership has published more than 125 scientific papers,

sponsored four professional workshops, produced a

professional symposium reporting results from BEMRP’s first

5 years, hosted many field trips, and provided numerous

presentations to scientific, professional, and lay audiences.

Interactions between managers and researchers have

contributed greatly to the relevancy of both the research

undertaken and efforts to present results.

The year 2000 fires in the Bitterroot watershed changed the

research/management landscape, perhaps as dramatically as it

changed the forest landscape! The following year, researchers

from many government entities, universities, and other

organizations established 60 studies on the Bitterroot Forest

and surrounding area. Only a fraction of these studies were

undertaken by BEMRP. A critical need for coordination among

this diverse set of researchers and land managers became

apparent. BEMRP and the Forest responded by establishing a

jointly funded research/management coordinator position, now

held by Sherry Ritter. Sherry’s very capable work has

significantly increased the effectiveness of BEMRP technology

transfer efforts, as well as provided coordination among

researchers, and between them and Bitterroot Forest managers.

In the next 5 years, the partnership plans to return to its

roots. We will undertake one or more integrated landscapescale ecosystem management/research project(s) involving

multiple green tree fuel/forest restoration treatments with

Who We Are, Where We Have Been, and Where We Are Going

Greg Jones, BEMRP Program Leader,

on the Missoula Forestry Sciences Lab

campus. Photo by Kurt Krueger.

(continued on page 19)