(continued on page 2)

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

Inside

• Sustainability at the

Landscape Level ....................... (p. 1)

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

• New Faces................................ (p. 10)

• Getting the Word Out ............ (p. 13)

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

• Book Corner ........................... (p. 19)

Janie Canton-Thompson, Social Scientist and ECO-Report

Editor, R5, Recreation Solutions Enterprise Team,

Missoula, MT

“Don’t kill the goose that lays the golden

egg!” reads an old proverb. Who would want

to? Why not? It’s all about sustainability. In the

context of forested landscapes, sustainability is

“the capacity of forests, ranging from stands to

ecoregions, to maintain their health,

productivity, diversity, and overall integrity in

the long run, in the context of human activity

and use” (Society of American Foresters

[SAF]). However, sustainability is a social

concept whose realization is in the eye of the

beholder. Sustainability for whom, for what

purposes, how, where, for how long? What practices are

sustainable and at what scale? Asking the right questions is

prerequisite for sustainable management. Once we’ve asked

the right questions, and bounded the things we want to sustain,

there are many approaches to sustainability. Although most of

us want to perpetuate ecosystems over time and space, we have

reached little agreement on which system to sustain, for what

purpose, for how long, and for whose good. How do we get a

handle on a state of being desired by many but agreed on by

few?

Historically, deforestation has resulted from increased

agricultural expansion, industrialization, and national defense

support. As these activities have gathered momentum, ability to

sustain forested landscapes has declined.

 In the late 1800s Americans began realizing their

continent’s natural resources were finite. By the second half of

the 20th century, ecologists, sociologists, and economists were

starting to use systems theory to understand ecological, social,

and economic relationships and develop ways to ensure steady

supplies of natural resources for perpetuity. These

professionals soon realized that attempts to improve human

socio-economic well-being, including economic development

projects aimed at alleviating poverty or promoting wealth, had

unanticipated detrimental effects on the natural environment.

As they worked to understand the interrelationships among

social, economic, and ecological components of the

Scale Matters—Some Thoughts on

Landscape Sustainability

environment, they began thinking in terms of sustainability.

(For more than a decade, BEMRP scientists have also been

exploring sustainability, including its values-laden nature.)

Many articles and books have been written on

this topic. Most acknowledge the difficulty of

defining, let alone achieving, sustainability in

natural systems.

Typically, sustainability literature reveals an

inverse relationship between socio-economic

and ecological system well-being over time.

Forested landscapes have adapted to natural and

human-induced disturbance patterns, or

perished. While such landscapes have evolved

over millennia in a context of disturbances both

human and natural, they are increasingly unable

to adapt to the magnitude and compacted-intime effects of human disturbances.

If sustainability is desired, humans must manage their

impacts on forested landscapes and collaboratively resolve the

values trade-offs involved. Since time immemorial, people

have treated forested landscapes as both sacred places and

sources of material goods. One person experiences a forested

landscape and sees its utilitarian value; the next person looks

upon it and feels a sense of spiritual enrichment. Who is

correct? Forests don’t care. They, in conjunction with other

landscape components, adapt often with great resilience until

cumulative human and/or natural disturbances push them over

a threshold beyond which they cannot sustain their historical

character. Systems within the landscape then dramatically

change.

 Natural resource experts are focusing increasing efforts

on reducing the probability of more and more forested

landscapes being altered by human activities to a point of

being irreversibly

degraded. Some

ecologists and

economists are now

conceptualizing

components of our

A sustainable ecosystem is the

goose that lays the golden eggs!
2

natural environment as “natural capital,” assets that provide

“ecosystem services” and therefore have values even if left

intact. As the world’s population grows, the supply of services

like natural detoxification and waste recycling offered by our

natural environment is diminishing. Forests provide services

by sequestering carbon; purifying water; reducing potential

harm from flooding, drought, and erosion; providing human

food and shelter; and rejuvenating human spirits.

To stem the growing liquidation of “natural capital,”

groups around the world are measuring, capturing, and

beginning to protect these newly discovered values via market

forces. Such assets can conceivably be traded in the

marketplace and valued according to supply and demand. For

instance, people might own “carbon rights” (forests’ capacity

to sequester carbon and stabilize climate). Owning “natural

capital” allows bargaining between those affected by an

Landscape Sustainability . . . ( from page 1) externality (here defined as uncompensated costs or benefits to

a third party) and those causing it. Owners can be compensated

for the ecosystem services their intact landscapes (natural

capital) provide instead of being forced to liquidate that capital

to survive. Tropical rainforest owners typically burn and clear

forests, planting crops on the tree-denuded landscapes. Were

they to be compensated for the ecosystem services their forests

provide, they might be willing to keep them intact and even

improve their standard of living.

An important aspect of sustainability is deciding “scale.”

After much deliberation, scientists, managers, and the public

have come to realize the importance of “place.” Landscape

scale best captures that concept. (Landscape is “a spatial

mosaic of several ecosystems, landforms, and plant

communities across a defined area irrespective of ownership or

other artificial boundaries and repeated in similar form

throughout” [SAF]).

People in everyday life can tangibly experience a

landscape. They can visualize it; travel through it; understand

its components and processes; and manage for what they want

from it. They can revel in its diversified beauty and solitude as

they walk, bike, or ride through it, and/or collect wood and

other products to satisfy their needs.

Scientists can establish transects and test treatments at the

landscape scale, allowing them to learn about interrelationships

between ecological system components and processes.

Managers are able to make meaningful decisions and

implement treatments at the landscape level. Individual

organisms within the system may be lost to death or migration,

but the historical percentage and distribution of patch types,

age classes, disturbance processes and so forth can be

maintained. Periodic disturbances may have a presence on one

part of the landscape, while stands of trees and shrubs

recovering from these disturbances grow elsewhere. Managers

can also think about how the results of management or no

management might alter the landscape’s historical character.

Landscape modeling, helpful in predicting changes

resulting from treatments or lack thereof, is much easier to

accomplish at the landscape level than at larger scales.

Attempting to manage for sustainability at levels lower than

landscape scale becomes more difficult because processes such

as food and nutrition cycles become fragmented. Considering

and maintaining the integrity of forest ecosystem structure and

process requires research, planning, and managing at the

landscape level.

Landscape sustainability—where, for whom, what, for

what purpose, how, for how long? Each person has a vision of

what a sustainable landscape looks like. As a heterogeneous

society, we face significant trade-offs in our attempts to achieve

sustainability. Instead of insisting on our own individual or

group criteria for sustainability being fully met, we must

continue collaborating to develop mutually acceptable land

management plans. This entails compromises from all sides of

the socio-political spectrum. Our landscapes are at or near their

sustainability thresholds, meaning all of us must agree to work

together to sustain mutually desirable landscapes.

Landscapes are a collage of scenes representing various

landforms, vegetation types, habitats, and activities. They are

ever dynamic but ultimately sustainable with thoughtful

scientifically informed management. (Photos by Dan Ritter, Dan

Ritter, and Sharon Ritter, respectively.)

ECO-Report

Published by the

Rocky Mountain Research Station

800 E. Beckwith St., Missoula, MT 59801

(406) 542-3248

Editor/Writer: Janie Canton-Thompson

Associate Editor: Sharon Ritter
3

Greg Jones, Project Unit Leader and BEMRP Program

Leader, RMRS, Economic Aspects of Forest Management on

Public Lands, Missoula, MT

Forest managers face many questions about fire-prone

forests of the Northern Rockies:

• What values are at risk from catastrophic fires in areas

where frequent, low-intensity fire was historically the

norm?

• How are the risks changed by treatments designed to

reduce fuel and restore forest health?

• What mosaic of treatments is most effective in reducing

risk while having acceptable resource impacts?

• What are the trade-offs over time between costs and

effects of treatments versus costs and effects if no

treatments are done?

An ongoing BEMRP-funded study is addressing these and

related questions by testing the integration of information from

three types of spatial landscape models, as shown in the

accompanying Modeling Flow Chart (fig. 1). The study focuses

on a 57,800-acre area within the Bitterroot National Forest’s

Darby Ranger District, bounded on the north by Bunkhouse

Creek and on the south by Trapper Creek.

In Step 1 of the information integration process, we used

landscape models to map and assess current fuel conditions,

likelihood of fire, and how we expect these conditions to

change in response to future vegetation growth and the

presence of insects, disease, and wildland fire. This step also

addressed meanings attached by residents to specific places in

the study area.

Visualizing a Forest Landscape

Today and Tomorrow

Use of SIMPPLLE (http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecology/

publications/simpplle/), a vegetation simulation model, enabled

us to predict spatially the likelihood of fire across the landscape

for current conditions and how we expect these conditions to

change over time if there are no management treatments.

Changes in vegetation because of insect and disease

disturbances affecting future fuels are included in these

simulations.

Application of fire behavior models—FARSITE,

FLAMMAP, and MTT (http://farsite.org/)—predicted fire

spread and intensity for existing landscape conditions in two

fire scenarios. Both assumed burning conditions at the 95th

percentile. One assumed ignition from lightning on the

western edge of the study area with wind from the west, while

the other assumed ignition points in the southern edge with

wind from the south. The Treatment Optimization Model

(TOM) was then used to identify treatment locations that best

reduce fire spread rate and intensity for these specific fire

scenarios. Approximately 25 percent of treatment locations

suggested for the west wind scenario were also selected for the

south wind scenario.

MAGIS (http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/econ/magis/), a spatial

optimization model, is allowing us to schedule optimal

treatment scenarios. It calculates resource and economic tradeoffs where one is managing for multiple resource objectives.

MAGIS integrates input from fire behavior and disturbance

process models and balances treatments to modify fire behavior

relative to the location of valued resources—homes, sensitive

habitats, and streams— while estimating costs and possible

revenues over a range of treatment options.

Researchers presented managers maps of modeled results,

with an analysis of possible ecological effects, resource tradeoffs, and economic estimates (fig. 2). Managers, in turn, have

used this information to guide fieldwork and standard impact

analysis as they draft a Proposed Action for the Trapper

Figure 2 – Trapper Bunkhouse interdisciplinary team reviews spatial

vegetation treatment scenarios developed by BEMRP scientists using Figure 1 – Flow Chart depicts the use of spatial landscape models to the MAGIS model. (Photo by Sharon Ritter.) a) analyze current conditions and predicted changes without

vegetation treatments, b) develop and map treatment alternatives,

and c) analyze effects of treatment alternatives. Treatment

alternatives focus specifically on areas of concern identified in step

a. (Graphic by Kevin Hyde and Greg Jones.)

(continued on page 8)
4

Research Highlights

Ward McCaughey, Research Forester, RMRS, Ecology and

Management of Northern Rocky Mountain Landscapes,

Missoula, MT

Spatial fuel

treatment strategies,

natural and humancaused disturbance

history patterns, and

fuel reduction

treatment effects—

managing for

sustainability

presupposes

ecological knowledge

about all these topics

and more. The

Ecology and

Management of

Northern Rocky

Mountain Landscapes

Research Work Unit

(RWU) conducts

research on all three

topics.

In 2004, BEMRP

started a new,

multidisciplinary,

landscape-scale

project (see articles

on pp. 3 and 20)—

Trapper Bunkhouse

Land Stewardship

Project (Trapper

Bunkhouse). Phase 1 of Trapper Bunkhouse has produced new

information on how landscape and project-specific models can

be applied to develop spatial fuel treatment strategies, taking

into account other management objectives and limitations.

For a Trapper Bunkhouse “no action” alternative, the

Ecology RWU completed several computer simulation runs of

landscape processes along the entire Bitterroot National

Forest’s western side. We used the SIMPPLLE (SIMulating

Patterns and Processes at Landscape scaLEs) model to

identify places where wildfires might have the greatest impact

on the wildland/urban interface. Interaction with simulated

insect and disease activity influenced wildfire occurrences.

SIMPPLLE selected three critical areas; these, together with

local knowledge from Bitterroot National Forest resource

specialists, enabled us to select the area between Trapper and

Bunkhouse creeks as highest priority for fuel reduction efforts.

RWU riparian research efforts also continued this year.

We collected fire history and vegetation data from 13

headwater stream corridors and associated uplands on the

Bitterroot and Lolo National Forests. This summer a fourperson crew completed collection of fire scar, increment core,

and stand structure data. Research results show that fire

Ecology Research—Something Old, Something New

frequency in these mixed conifer/lodgepole pine systems was

more frequent and less severe than generally supposed. Fires

burned the Bitterroot sites approximately every 5 to 36 years.

Tree species generally considered sensitive to fire show

evidence of fire scars and sometimes display multiple scars.

This indicates that low-intensity fires occurred rather

frequently on these riparian sites. The existence of pulses of

regeneration following fire events that killed trees indicates that

some higher-intensity fires were present. Fires were relatively

frequent in these systems and occurred at very short intervals—

as short as one year.

Our riparian research data will be fully analyzed by spring

of 2006 and can provide managers with the best available

information about disturbance history patterns in sensitive

trout-bearing streams. Such information is useful in guiding

forest planning efforts, as well as fire and fish management

decisions.

 The Ecology and Management of Northern Rocky

Mountain Landscapes RWU has many projects scattered

around the Northern Rockies. BEMRP’s projects are just a few

of what we are doing to improve knowledge of the ecosystems

in this area, a prerequisite to achieving landscape sustainability.

For more information on our unit, please see our website at

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecology/.

Eric Ziegler collects an increment core

from a fire-killed tree on the Bitterroot

National Forest to help discover

information on historical fire. (Photo by

Ethan Mace.)

Managers and researchers tour the Hayes Creek thinning

project to evaluate current Bitterroot National Forest

management techniques and discuss potential for research on

alternative vegetation treatments. (Photo by Ward McCaughey.)
5

Research Highlights

Dave Calkin, Research Forester, RMRS, Economic Aspects of

Forest Management on Public Lands, Missoula, MT

Almost a million tons of biomass left over after thinnings

designed to reduce hazardous fuels and increase tree vigor, thus

decreasing susceptibility to insects and disease, could provide

significant small business opportunities in the Bitterroot Valley.

Researchers with the Forest Service Economics Research Work

Unit and the University of Montana are exploring opportunities

to use forest waste material for industrial and public facilities.

An example would be the biomass heating systems recently

installed in the Darby and Victor, MT school districts. Biomass

utilization 1) encourages sustainable community development,

2) reduces environmental effects associated with open burning

of excess forest fuels, and 3) defrays costs of necessary

hazardous fuel reduction treatments on public and private

lands. Biomass utilization can help the Forest Service achieve

its goal of reducing hazardous fuels.

Availability and costs of obtaining materials are key

factors in deciding whether biomass industries are financially

viable. As such, researchers have evaluated potential volumes

and costs of collecting biomass from fuel reduction treatments

in Ravalli County, MT. A recent study showed that 12 to 14

green tons per acre of biomass are available from

approximately 67,000 acres identified as high priority for

selected fuel reduction treatments. This results in over 800,000

Economics Research Unit Explores Biomass Utilization

Opportunities on the Bitterroot National Forest

tons of potentially available biomass material (enough material

to fuel over 50 schools the size of Darby for 20 years). The

researchers estimated it would cost approximately $9 per ton to

chip the residual material from a whole tree logging operation

and transport it to a central collection location in Darby.

Collection and delivery costs for the whole tree logging system

are comparable to the cost of piling and burning the material on

site. Cut-to-length logging systems that process materials in the

woods are more expensive—$31 per ton to collect and deliver

the materials to Darby.

Additionally, researchers are using landscape modeling

tools to determine how small-diameter timber utilization could

change fuel treatment opportunities on the Bitterroot National

Forest and the Colorado Front Range. These models take into

account how the forests change over time because of growth and

how fuel treatments can best be scheduled to reduce the effects

of wildfire. This information will be incorporated into the

Trapper Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project to estimate

potential biomass volumes available from proposed treatments.

Biomass utilization is an integral component in any

solution that addresses the hazardous fuels issues currently

experienced in much of the western United States. BEMRP

research funding is leveraged with other Forest Service funding

to identify potential solutions to this challenging problem.

A slash bundler collects biomass as part of a field trial in the

Bitterroot Valley to study the economics of collecting and using

biomass from fuel reduction projects compared to burning it on site.

(Photo courtesy of the USDA Forest Service.)

Biomass boilers use wood chips, needles, and bark from hazardous

fuel reduction projects to provide efficient fuel for school heating

systems and reduce air quality impacts from open burning of wood

materials. (Photo courtesy of USDA Forest Service.)

Wood chips ride a conveyor to Darby School’s new biomass boiler.

This alternative reduces school heating costs and effects associated

with open burning of excess forest fuels. (Photo courtesy of USDA

Forest Service.)
6

Mick Harrington, Research Forester

RMRS, Fire Ecology and Fuels, Missoula, MT

Looking across the landscape of the Bitterroot Front, we

see vast areas covered with dense forests. Some assume this

condition is “natural” and has remained unchanged for

centuries. However, examination of sites with old trees,

indications from historical photographs, and other scientific

evidence strongly suggest that lower elevation ecosystems had

significantly fewer but larger trees, most of which were

ponderosa pine. The dense forests with increased numbers of

Douglas-fir that we see today have resulted from 75 to 100

years of active management, including cutting large trees and

suppressing wildfires. Apparent consequences of this forest

condition are becoming evident and include landscape-level

severe wildfire and large-scale insect attacks. Management

wants to reduce forest density, primarily the Douglas-fir, and

forest fuels accumulation in an attempt to improve tree health

and reduce the probability of severe fire.

Several studies initiated by the Fire Ecology and Fuels

Research Work Unit at the Fire Sciences Lab were established

on a small scale to evaluate the effectiveness of active forest

management. If results are favorable, National Forests could

apply these treatments on a larger scale. Two studies have been

on-going long enough to assess tree growth response. Growth

rates we are evaluating would be responses to several thinning

and prescribed burning treatments implemented to change

forest structure (tree numbers and sizes) and composition

(different species) to 1) resemble stable historical conditions,

2) increase forest health by reducing competition, and 3)

reduce the probability of uncharacteristically severe wildfire.

Tree growth is a good indicator of health because trees add new

wood each year in proportion to the amount of food (carbon)

produced by photosynthesis.

From 1992 to 1994, we applied different thinning and

prescribed burning treatments, using a replicated research

design, to several forest stands in the Lick Creek Research Area

near Lake Como on the Bitterroot National Forest. One project

planned for late summer of 2005 is to determine the success of

these early 1990s treatments by remeasuring diameters and

heights of several thousand trees 12 years after treatment. We

will also take tree cores from a small sample of trees to

precisely measure individual yearly growth rings. Tree growth

in areas where thinning alone and thinning and prescribed

burning occurred will be compared to growth in areas where no

treatments took place. In addition, we will compare growth of

trees that sustained some inevitable prescribed fire damage,

such as scorched foliage, to growth of trees with no damage.

Sites with very old trees, often called old-growth sites, are

rare, so there is much interest in preserving them. It has

become increasingly clear that historically, fires sustained oldgrowth stands across the landscape by keeping competition and

fuels at a minimum, allowing trees with high fire resistance to

become old and large. Sometimes in our effort to protect stands

with old trees, we have attempted to remove disturbances that

historically kept them viable, such as suppression of wildfires.

However, this well-meaning action has increased chances that

these old trees will face mounting competition from new trees

and the potential of severe wildfire. In 1999, we initiated

restoration treatments in a stand of 350-year-old ponderosa

pine and western larch just north of Missoula by thinning and

prescribed burning the young trees. Six years later we are

preparing to measure the growth rates of these old trees to

determine if they are healthier as a result of our treatments and

better able to resist insect attacks. Diameters will be

remeasured and trees’ core growth rings evaluated and

compared to measurements of old trees in untreated stands.

Earlier measurements have already determined that

thinning and fuels reduction activities on these two sites (Lick

Creek and the old-growth sites) have significantly reduced risk

of a stand-destroying wildfire. Results from this current tree

growth research will help determine the important treatment

impacts on forest health.

Research Highlights

Determining Thinning and Prescribed Burning

Success from Tree Growth

The photo on the left shows a dense, slow growing, fire-prone stand of pine in the Lick Creek Research Area before treatments in 1991. The photo

on the right shows the same view 12 years following thinning and prescribed burning treatments. Crown fire potential has been significantly

reduced, and the trees and grasses and forbs are more vigorous. (Photos by Mick Harrington.)
7

Research Highlights

Peter Kolb, Extension Forestry Specialist, Montana State

University/Adjunct Professor, University of Montana,

Missoula, MT, and LaWen Hollingsworth, Fire Ecologist,

Helena National Forest, Helena, MT

From the warm, dry forests of lower elevations to the cold,

wet subalpine forests, western forested landscapes have been

shaped by fire. Firefighters, land managers, and researchers

want to understand why wildfires behave as they do, what

influences the severity of fire effects, and how fire severity

affects vegetation recovery. These seemingly simple questions

have a myriad of not-so-simple answers that are not always

well understood.

The year following the fire season of 2000, we used

BEMRP funding to establish 100 transects on the Bitterroot

National Forest and Sula State Forest to investigate forest

structure effects on fire behavior and fire severity. We

remeasured these transects in 2003 to determine post-fire

vegetation recovery, which may be influenced by differing

management history, fire behavior, fire effects, slope, aspect,

slope shape, and position on slope (see photos A - D). We

determined fire severity in two ways. First, we used a severity

rating based on overstory fire effects—crown fire (high

severity), lethal understory (mixed severity), or surface fire

(low severity). Second, we examined impacts on the soil

surface’s organic layer and assigned a rating: 1) litter burned

and duff intact, 2) litter and 50 percent duff consumed, 3) all

litter and duff consumed, and 4) all organics consumed and

mineral soil scorched.

It appeared that pre-fire surface fuel loading and weather

conditions during the fire had major effects on fire behavior. A

study examining similar stand structures and topographic

positions, further stratified by fire weather information (time of

day, temperature, relative humidity, wind direction, wind

speed, rate of spread, and estimated fire intensity), might

provide more conclusive results.

Between initial vegetation sampling in 2001 and

remeasurement in 2003, forb and graminoid (a grass-like plant)

cover remained nearly equal, but shrubs and moss showed

significant increases in cover. Scientific literature indicates

post-fire recovery is determined by colonizers that seed into

Vegetation Recovery across Wildland Fire Severity

Gradients in Western Montana

Same location as Photo A, taken summer 2003. (Photo by

Peter Kolb.)

Summer 2001 photo of a severely burned and subsequently

salvage-logged plot on Sula State Forest. Site burned in August

2000 and was salvage logged December 2000 to February 2001.

(Photo by Peter Kolb.)

A

B

C

D

Summer 2001 photo of a site that severely burned in August

2000 but received no post-fire treatment. (Photo by Peter Kolb.)

Same location as Photo C, taken summer 2003. Vegetation 3

years post-fire was largely determined by pre-fire vegetation,

initial burn severity, and proximity of colonizer plants (including

weeds) to the disturbed area. Salvage logging had no effect on

vegetation composition and recovery during the first 3 years

post-fire. (Photo by Peter Kolb.)

(continued on page 12)
8

Research Highlights

Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project (Trapper Bunkhouse).

(See also article on p. 20)

The next modeling step entails developing other treatment

alternatives for consideration. We will simulate all alternatives

using both SIMPPLLE and the fire behavior models FARSITE,

FLAMMAP, and MTT, as shown on the right-side of the

Modeling Flow Chart. Researchers will compare these results

to “no treatment” simulations to predict treatment effectiveness

in terms of changes in fire spread rates, fire intensity, and the

likelihood of fire at specific locations across the landscape.

Models involved in this study address different important

aspects of fuel and forest health restoration. The Trapper

Bunkhouse Project gives researchers and managers an

opportunity to collaborate on investigating how best to integrate

use of these diverse models to effectively address critical

questions surrounding vegetation treatment design. The

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest is using a similar

approach. It’s part of a national effort to test alternative

approaches for planning locations of fuel treatments to reduce

the likelihood of severe wildland fire in locations with

significant values at risk.

Joe Jensen, M.S. Forestry, University of

Montana, College of Forestry and

Conservation, Missoula, MT

Consider an unusual set of

cooperators—ants and spotted knapweed.

Ants likely enhance knapweed’s territorial

conquering of the greater western

Montana ecosystem. While it is accepted

that invasive plants impact native systems,

we know little about the specific nature of

these effects. This study examined impacts

of spotted knapweed invasion on native

ant communities, as part of a larger

BEMRP-funded study led by the Wildlife

Ecology Research Work Unit of Rocky

Mountain Research Station.

Ants are eusocial: they live in a community, with each

individual assuming a role within a caste that performs

specific duties for the colony. In most ant colonies only one

ant, the queen, lays eggs. The queen mates with male ants,

which are rare and only found during breeding. In contrast,

the majority of ants in a colony are non-breeding individuals

known as workers. The workers clean and defend the nest,

forage for food, and raise the young.

Ant colonies begin when a newly-mated queen ant digs a

small nest and lays eggs therein. The eggs hatch into the

colony’s first workers, which enlarge the nest and forage for

food. The foraging and nest expansion enable the queen to lay

more eggs, producing more workers. If and only if the colony

is able to secure enough food and survive the predation of

larger animals does it undergo a reproductive event, producing

unmated queens and males. The colony releases the unmated

queens and males at the same time as other ants of the same

species so that males and queens from different colonies can

mate with each other. After mating, the males fly off to die,

while the new, newly mated queens find colonies of their own.

My research suggests that spotted knapweed actually

promotes ant communities. I found that savannas invaded by

spotted knapweed had a higher diversity of ant species than

savannas dominated by native plants. Furthermore, I found that

colonies produced more new queens and male ants in

knapweed-invaded savannas.

Next, I investigated how spotted knapweed may promote

ant communities. Elaiosomes—nutritious nodes found on seeds

of some plants—that develop on seeds of spotted knapweed

presented one possibility. Ants typically collect seeds of

elaiosome-bearing plants, later discarding the seeds and eating

the elaiosome. While the ants gain a nutritious food source, the

seed also enjoys several benefits, including greater dispersal

distances.

To determine whether elaiosome-bearing seeds of spotted

knapweed attract ants, I conducted an experiment. I found that

native ants readily removed spotted knapweed seeds, but they

ignored the seeds of two native plant species. Most of our

native plants, including those used in the experiment, lack

elaiosomes. This suggests that elaiosomes on spotted knapweed

seeds attract ants and serve as a food source. In addition, it is

likely that ant dispersal of

spotted knapweed seeds

enhances the plant’s ability

to invade undisturbed plant

communities.

The fact that ant diversity

appears to be greater in areas

invaded by spotted

knapweed, coupled with the

likelihood that ants consume

the elaiosomes and disperse

the seeds of spotted

knapweed, suggests a

mutualism may have formed between the plant and insect. A

mutualism is a relationship where both participants help the

other. In the case of ants and spotted knapweed, ants gain a

nutritious food supplement, which promotes ant reproduction

and allows for more diverse communities. Spotted knapweed

seeds in turn are dispersed farther with the help of ants. If this

relationship does exist, then ant communities likely increase

the invasiveness of spotted knapweed.

Ants and Spotted Knapweed Team Up

Below: Ants like this Formica rufa appear to be attracted

to the seeds of spotted knapweed, dispersing them in

exchange for a nutritious reward found on the seed called

an elaiasome. (Photo by S. Aubert, R. Hurstel, and M.

Noël.)

Left: Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), an exotic

plant invader of western North America, overruns native

plant communities, affecting native fauna from elk to

ants. (Photo by Cindy Roche.)

Visualizing a Landscape. . . (from page 3)
9

Research Highlights

Katie Knotek, Social Science Research Assistant, RMRS, Aldo

Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, MT

Humans are a part of

forest and grassland

ecosystems where we live,

recreate, work, obtain timber

products, and seek spiritual

solace, among many other

uses. Therefore, it’s important

to consider the human aspects

of sustainable management of

these ecosystems. BEMRP

social scientists are working

to understand meanings

people assign to the Bitterroot

National Forest and how

these meanings interact with

public attitudes toward fire

and fuels management. These

scientists have also been

studying how, on the Lewis

and Clark National Forest,

the Forest Service has

engaged the public in fire and

fuels management efforts.

The Northern Rockies serves as a unique laboratory for

investigating human issues related to fire and fuels

management across a landscape that extends from federally

protected Wilderness to houses intermingled with forest and

grasslands. As part of planning for a landscape-level fuels

treatment project on the Bitterroot National Forest, BEMRP

social scientists conducted a baseline assessment of human

meanings attached to the Bitterroot landscape, from the valley

floor to the crest of the Bitterroot Range. Scientists found that

people attach meanings both to places they go and places they

don’t go, and some people value specific places, while others

value large parts of the landscape. For example, one describes

the familiarity of a canyon he rode with his dad as a child.

Another describes an entire watershed that could provide

medicinal plants, but he has never personally visited it. GIS

mapping (fig. 1) of the spatial distribution of these human

values provided social data that, coupled with ecological

modeling efforts, could be used to evaluate social and resource

trade-offs among alternative fuels treatments.

BEMRP social scientists have also interviewed Lewis and

Clark National Forest managers and local community members

about a large prescribed burn in the Scapegoat Wilderness (fig.

2). The burn established conditions that will allow fire to play a

natural role within the Wilderness in the future while

decreasing the chance that fires will move out of the

Wilderness. The interviews are helping us better understand

how the Forest Service engages the public to accomplish fire

and fuels management. Although data analysis is ongoing,

preliminary results indicate that certain agency behaviors and

organizational characteristics displayed during the planning

and implementation of the prescribed burn positively

Human Aspects of Fire and Fuels Management

in the Northern Rockies

influenced public trust in the agency and support for the burn.

For example, agency personnel, sensitive to public information

needs about the burn, initiated one-on-one contacts with

concerned individuals or small groups within the local

communities. Also, agency personnel intentionally provided

detailed information to the public concerning the Prescribed

Fire Plan, including required conditions to ignite the burn and

contingency resources that would be available during

implementation.

The BEMRP social science research program is helping

Forest Service managers assess how their planning and

implementation of fire and fuels management influences

relationships people have with National Forests and with the

Forest Service. Attention to these human aspects is essential for

succeeding in fire and fuels management.

Figure 1 – Some people value

specific places, while others value

large parts of the Bitterroot Front

landscape. (Graphic courtesy of

the Leopold Institute.)

Figure 2 – Social science project manager, Katie Knotek, interviews

community members to understand how landscape changes affect

their relationship with public lands. (Photo courtesy of the Leopold

Institute.)

New Publication Available

To minimize effects of hazardous fuel reduction

projects, land managers need to understand their potential

impacts on natural resources. Research and case studies

have provided valuable information on effects of thinning

and prescribed fire on resources such as soils, wildlife,

understory vegetation, and others. A new annotated

bibliography focuses on this kind of research in the

Northern Rockies, mainly in ponderosa pine, western larch,

Douglas-fir, and lodgepole pine forests. The draft

bibliography will be published as a General Technical

Report through the Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Ritter, Sharon A.; Sutherland, Elaine Kennedy; McCaughey,

Ward; Scher, Jan. Hazardous Fuels Reduction Treatments in

the Northern Rockies: An Annotated Bibliography. Draft

available online at http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fuels/

(then click on publications).
10

New Faces in Collaboration

(continued on page 12)

Janie Canton-Thompson, Social

Scientist and ECO-Report Editor,

R5, Recreation Solutions Enterprise

Team, Missoula, MT

“Think outside the box.” “Get

outside your comfort zone.” “Look

at the big picture.” “See how all the

pieces fit together.” “Think

landscape scale.” “Think economy

of scale.” “Collaborate.” “Work

through controversy.” “Practice

multiple use.” These statements

capture Chuck Oliver’s philosophy

of work and life. Chuck became

Darby’s district ranger in October

2003.

Born and raised in

Albuquerque, NM, he was a city kid who found school

uninteresting and liked having fun. Following graduation and

being adrift regarding his future he remembered being

enamored with “the guys in the green uniforms” he’d seen in

campgrounds on family vacations. He enrolled at New Mexico

State University where he received an undergraduate degree in

range management and a master’s degree in agricultural

economics.

In 1989, Chuck obtained his first Forest Service position in

Butte, MT, as a range conservationist for the Butte District,

Deer Lodge National Forest, eventually transitioning to an

operations research analyst/planner job in the Supervisor’s

Office. Next, he obtained a supervisory range conservationist

position on the Reserve District, Gila National Forest, NM, in

1994. The work had its rewards—days on horseback with

permittees checking allotments—but included challenges as

well. It was the height of the “Sagebrush Rebellion” as

livestock numbers were being reduced on allotments, and the

environmental community adopted the area as “their poster

child for bad grazing.” Caught in the middle, Chuck gained

valuable experience in diffusing controversy in some pretty

ugly situations.

 Next, he became District Ranger on the Parks District,

Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, Walden, CO, in October

2001. Chuck’s experience on the Reserve District equipped him

to deal with more anti-government issues. “All these guys

wanted was somebody to talk to.”

Although beautiful, Walden had 9 to 10 months of winter

so when the Darby Ranger job opened, Chuck applied and was

selected. Darby allows him, his wife, Jeanette, and their three

children to continue small town rural life while pursuing more

warm weather activities.

Both District employees and the Darby community have

accepted Chuck. “It’s been a good transition,” he says. Good

relationships persist despite downsizing and unprecedented

agency changes. Chuck likes challenges. “I’m always looking

“It’s a Different World”—A Visit with

Ranger Chuck Oliver

y )

Chuck Oliver, Darby District Ranger, Bitterroot National

Forest. (Photo by Nan Christianson.)

for new things to do. There are a lot

of opportunities here.”

Conflict management

experience helps in communities

when agency decisions threaten

livelihoods. Chuck’s a people

person who likes to attend

community meetings to understand

where people are coming from and

where things are headed. His strong

land ethic and multiple use

persuasions run deep. Many times

he’s at odds with both sides of an

issue, which helps him bring people

together to reach common ground.

“I’m a real strong believer in the

collaborative process—having

people involved in the development

of projects as we move forward.”

 One of Chuck’s biggest challenges is the rampant change

within the Forest Service. He’s frustrated by his inability to

soften impacts of these changes, and he knows what it’s like to

be on an “excess employees list.” Every time he tells his staff,

“We’ve hit the bottom; it can’t get any worse,” it still gets

worse. “We’ve been a can-do agency forever, always done

more with less, and it’s leading to a wreck.”

Wilderness dams are another challenge. Dam owners want

access for equipment to maintain dams at legal levels; yet the

Wilderness Act forbids it. The Forest Service is caught in the

middle.

 The District is trying to recover from the fires of 2000

with an exceedingly short budget. Insects harmful to trees are

spreading throughout a forest stressed by fire and drought, and

widespread blow-down poses serious travel hazards. Bringing

opposing sides together to develop a plan to treat fuels and

insect problems is a challenge. Meanwhile, not much

management is happening on the ground.

Chuck is a real BEMRP champion. Recently, the Bitterroot

National Forest identified critical areas needing management,

and BEMRP researchers communicated their own respective

study interests. Out of these declarations, the Trapper

Bunkhouse Land Stewardship Project (Trapper Bunkhouse)

(see also articles on pp. 3 and 20) was launched on the Darby

district. Here, managers and researchers are considering

everything—fuels, bugs, sedimentation, visuals, fire danger,

wildland interface (WUI) concerns, and travel management—

holistically instead of taking a “piece-at-a-time approach.”

Both researchers and managers realize there’s been a gap

in how they work together. Managers are encouraged to use

“best science,” but best science doesn’t always seem to fit real

world management needs. BEMRP’s Trapper Bunkhouse

Project has moved both groups beyond this stumbling block.

Researchers are participating on the Interdisciplinary team,

attending community meetings, and listening to all concerns as
11

(continued on page 16)

New Faces in Collaboration

Janie Canton-Thompson, Social

Scientist and ECO-Report Editor,

R5, Recreation Solutions Enterprise

Team, Missoula, MT

“As a wildlife biologist I always

had an interest in the big picture,

how work at the ranger district

could all fit together, and

coordinating my work with other

functions. That’s always been

something I’ve stuck my nose in,”

says Sula Ranger Tracy

Hollingshead.

Living “all over” Washington

seemed normal to Tracy. Her father

was a banker and transferred offices

often. The family always lived in

small communities and camped,

hiked, and fished together, stimulating Tracy’s interest in

biology.

Tracy attended Central Washington University at

Ellensburg where she received her biology degree, with a

wildlife management emphasis, in 1985.

Here, she gained extensive field experience in diverse

ecological types. During college, she trapped gypsy moths for

the State of Washington and assisted its Department of Fish

and Wildlife with mule deer research.

 Two months after graduation, she became a fire crew

member on the Darrington Ranger District, Mt. BakerSnoqualmie National Forest, in Washington. Two seasons later,

she was offered a seasonal wildlife biologist position, which

she accepted. “That was a tough decision. I loved fire.”

In 1990, the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest’s

White River District offered Tracy her permanent wildlife

biologist appointment. When the spotted owl controversy

prompted large-scale Forest downsizing, she volunteered to

find other work. “I loved working with spotted owls, but I was

also interested in trying something new and working in a

different type of ecosystem.”

Obtaining a wildlife biologist position on the WasatchCache National Forest in 1993, Tracy “went to a perfect place

where elk winter range, aspen, moose, and goshawks were the

issues. When I moved there, there were no threatened or

endangered species so I was able to get out in the field a lot. It

was a great job!” Over time, she increasingly served as acting

district ranger.

Wanting to stay in the Northwest, Tracy accepted a

permanent district ranger position on the Sula District,

Bitterroot National Forest, in 2003. “I’ve never had a bad

experience moving. It’s exciting to learn about a new area and

meet new people,” she says. “The ranger district is where it’s

at. I enjoy the atmosphere and the camaraderie that goes on at a

ranger district. Everybody pitches in to get things done.”

I asked Tracy what assets she offers the Forest. “I think it

may be people skills. I enjoy dealing with different people,

Big Picture Way of Doing Business—

A Ranger’s Perspective

Tracy Hollingshead, Sula District Ranger, Bitterroot

National Forest. (Photo by Nan Christianson.)

both the public and internally.

That’s interesting to me—working

with people and their issues.” Her

big picture approach helps too. “The

district is where things get done,

and this Forest has some great

people to work with who are very

capable, and team-oriented.”

Overall, Tracy feels her

reception by the local community

and ranger district has been good.

Many local landowners are

particularly happy about the

District’s Middle East Fork

Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project.

After the 2000 fires, much of the

surviving forest fell victim to an

exploding Douglas-fir beetle

population, and local folks fear another devastating fire. With

the Middle East Fork Project implementation, fuels in the

interface will be reduced, dead and dying trees will be removed,

and healthy trees can more easily secure needed water and

nutrients, helping them more successfully withstand fire and

beetle attacks.

The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) requires

“upfront collaboration,” a huge challenge for stakeholders who

embrace fundamentally different perspectives on landscape

management. “Many local residents have been very positive. It

has not been as positive with some who are not supportive of

this project,” says Tracy. With HFRA projects, “We have the

opportunity for up-front collaboration where we may have very

different viewpoints but can talk about things early on in the

project planning stage.”

Priorities for the District include restoration opportunities

in the burned area, the Middle East Fork Project, and travel

management. Tracy has joined the Forest’s travel management

team. “I have gained experience working on similar teams in

other places,” she says. Travel planning offers many

opportunities “to work with the public to develop a road system

that makes sense for a variety of recreational uses, forest

management, and fire protection.” Travel management is also a

prerequisite to quality wildlife habitat. Likewise,

accommodating and satisfying multiple uses—cattle, horses,

skiers, off-highway vehicles, mountain bikers, hikers, and

others—are ongoing travel issues.

Also a member of the Forest budget team, Tracy hopes “to

afford the folks we have, mentoring and giving people

opportunities to try something different, if that’s what they’re

interested in. That’s what happened to me. I had district rangers

interested in helping me out.”

Tracy strongly supports BEMRP. “The project in Laird

Creek is a great thing—having the opportunity to interpret and

use it as an educational tool about fire and its effects. A lot of

people have never really seen what a forest fire looks like. You
12

Research Highlights

Vegetation Recovery . . . (from page 7)

disturbed areas and survivors that resprout following fires. Our

data indicated the most prevalent species had a combination of

both traits. Post-fire plant recovery data suggested that across

Douglas-fir habitat types, immediate post-fire vegetation was

dominated (approximately 70 percent) by survivors. Species

such as pinegrass and snowberry showed a high resprouting

capability immediately after the fire and, in years following,

were very aggressive seed and rhizome producers that

colonized more severely affected sites.

As predicted, noxious weeds like spotted knapweed

appeared to invade burned areas. Where knapweed was present

in 2001, this species increased by approximately 30 percent

over the next two years. Similarly, by 2003 knapweed occupied

slightly more than one-third of the transects that previously had

no knapweed. Knapweed survival and invasion occurred most

frequently on sites that experienced mixed-severity soil surface

effects. We speculate that severely burned areas had little

residual survival of preexisting knapweed whereas mixedseverity sites had residual survivors that provided a seed source

for invasion into adjoining severely affected soil patches.

Salvage logging occurred on one-third of the transects

during the winter following the fires in areas that had

experienced stand-replacing fire with complete overstory

mortality. When compared with unlogged sites of similar

overstory severity, we found no significant difference in

vegetation recovery although total vegetation cover was

slightly higher on salvage-logged sites. Areas not salvaged

displayed less variability in species abundance (high evenness)

than vegetation in areas that were harvested. Species diversity

was similar on both treatments.

Finally, we compared fire severity estimates across

overstory vegetation and soil surface characteristics. Although

there was some correlation among these variables, a significant

number of transects showed discrepancies in these correlations.

We speculate several scenarios are responsible for this. Like

the number of factors contributing to overall fire behavior,

similar elements may contribute to fire severity. For example, a

crown fire supported by low understory fuel loadings may have

few impacts on soil surface organic matter. Alternatively, a

slow-moving surface fire burning through heavy surface fuel

accumulations, such as a thick duff layer, can have significant

negative effects on the soil surface and plant community while

leaving much of the overstory intact. Such differences need to

be recognized during post-fire rehabilitation

efforts.

Some correlations between stand structure

and fire behavior appeared to exist, but our

sample size and replication of similar

stand structures were too small to draw

significant conclusions. Continuing

research, together with the findings of

this study, will enhance our knowledge

of the subtle, and seemingly obvious,

factors that influence fire behavior and

effects.

Chuck Oliver . . . (from page 10)

they formulate research questions. Researchers come to realize

what information managers need to make things work on the

ground while managers are increasingly aware of what

researchers can do for them. “They [researchers] are out with

our people on the ground looking at what’s out there so we can

make the adjustments together to get what they need, and we

can get what we need. I’m excited about it. I think it’s a great

project.” From the beginning, the public has been impressed

with what researchers and managers can accomplish when they

pool their collective skills.

Asked about BEMRP’s future direction, Chuck replied,

“I’d love to continue down this route getting research folks tied

in with on-the-ground projects where what they produce for us

becomes a tool for us. We’ve talked about what’s real and

what’s not real on the ground, what works and what doesn’t

work. It saves us a lot of time, energy, and money because those

questions are answered, and we feel good about them.”

Hope permeates Chuck’s vision for his District. He’d like

to move toward more true collaboration. District projects could

be planned and implemented by all interests who willingly talk

through differences and develop mutually acceptable solutions.

Only then can they say, “We have buy-in from across the

spectrum.”

Chuck believes economy of scale is important and wants to

turn from traditional small projects to large projects where

ecosystem or area-wide analyses cover more than one thing at a

time. People tell him things like “You can’t do this because this

is the Bitterroot,” “It’s too complicated,” or “It’s a different

world.” Chuck disagrees. “I’d like to be able to make the

transition to looking at a more comprehensive view of the

Forest. The Trapper Bunkhouse is my first baby step.” In-house

skeptics warn “it’s going to get shut down as soon as it hits the

street,” which undermines the ability to accomplish anything on

the ground. Chuck says that thoroughly analyzing 10,000 acres

doesn’t cost much more than analyzing 1,000 acres, and it can

be just as sensitive to resource management issues.

 Involvement of community young people in District

operations is part of Chuck’s vision. He believes many of his

agency’s problems are caused by misperceptions. If the Forest

Service can show young people what’s happening in our

forests, Chuck believes future employees’ jobs will be easier.

He appreciates employees who set the stage through work-inschool programs. Because of this effort, local schools are

asking about opportunities for students to assist with District

projects.

While the Bitterroot might be a difficult case, Chuck is

determined to prove things can get done on the ground with the

endorsement of groups holding multiple perspectives. It takes

perseverance, loving a challenge, being a people person, and

thinking outside the box. It takes someone like Chuck who

reminds us, “If it’s not illegal, immoral, or unethical, we need

to be considering it.” It just might work “in a different world.”

New Faces in Collaboration
13

Getting the Word Out

Sharon Ritter, Research/Management Coordinator and

Assistant ECO-Report Editor, Bitterroot National Forest and

BEMRP, Hamilton, MT

There’s a photo that sticks in my mind. It was taken in

September 2000, just a month after fires started burning

through more than 360,000 acres of Ravalli County, Montana.

The photo (fig. 1) shows an ash-covered forest floor and

blackened stems of a shrub. You would think it was a blackand-white photo, except

that at the base of the

shrub are bright green

willow shoots, taking

advantage of a flush of

nutrients to start

reclaiming the forest. To

me, it’s a symbol of the

forest’s ability to renew

and sustain itself, as

long as we don’t

interfere too much with

natural processes.

After the fires, the

Bitterroot National

Forest led numerous

public tours into the

burned areas. In 2004,

BEMRP and the Forest

decided it was time for

another tour. This time,

we would look at how

the land had recovered,

both on its own and

with human help. We

also would listen to

researchers and

managers who had

made the burned area

into a laboratory over

the past 4 years.

 Thirty-two participants, mostly from the public, traveled

to the Laird Creek drainage in the southern Bitterroot Valley in

Montana. This area includes private and Forest Service lands

with a mixture of forest types and fire severities. The area also

was hit hard by thunderstorms a year after the fires, causing

debris flows and flooding. Since the fires, there have been

some salvage logging, erosion control, seeding, road

obliteration, new culverts, and planting of trees and shrubs.

Beetles flew into the area to take advantage of weakened trees.

It was a perfect site to talk about a number of issues related to

burned areas.

Our first stop was at the former location of the last private

house before the Forest boundary. From there, we could see an

empty foundation, debris flows, obliterated roads, vegetation

recovery, a new fish passage culvert, and severely burned

forest. Kevin Hyde, a hydrologist who studied two drainages

involved in the debris flows, encouraged us to think of them as

“gully rejuvenation.” After all, these are natural events, as

Learning About Burned Forests

evidenced by alluvial fans at the bases of many

drainages throughout the valley. Forest Service

fisheries biologist Mike Jakober talked about the

widespread fish kill that occurred during the fires

and the steady recovery of populations of westslope

cutthroat and bull trout since (fig. 2).

Our second stop gave us a view of old

plantations, a mosaic created by the fire, and

vegetation recovery. Here, Kristina Smucker from

the University of Montana talked about her research

on bird use of burned forests compared to unburned

ones. Each species responded differently to the

burned landscape, leading her to conclude that the

best situation for birds is providing a variety of fires

over space and time.

At our third stop, Terrie Jain, Rocky Mountain Research

Station in Moscow, Idaho, talked about some conditions

present on the ground pre-fire such as canopy density, surface

fuels, and height to the base of the crown. She then explained

how they affected fire severity. As we headed back down the

mountain, we stopped to look at some salvage logging and

discuss problems with meeting the Forest’s fuel reduction goals

in the burned area.

The best part of all our field trips over the years has been

the interaction among participants. At each stop, pairs and

groups of people got into productive discussions about what

they had seen and been told. As field trip coordinator, it was

my job to keep the tour on schedule. This required some

figurative nipping at their heels to get them onto the bus. Tours

we’ve conducted on the Bitterroot have been popular and wellattended. The public and resource managers appreciate the time

researchers take out of their busy schedules to share their latest

findings.

Figure 2 – The Laird Creek tour gave members of

the public a chance to hear from experts such as

Bitterroot National Forest Fisheries Biologist Mike

Jakober (far right) and Management & Engineering

Technologies I’ntl (METI) Landscape Modeling

Hydrologist Kevin Hyde. (Photo courtesy of the

Ravalli Republic.)

Figure 1 – A shrub resprouted from roots at its base

before the smoke even cleared on the Bitterroot fires

of 2000. ((Photo courtesy of USDA Forest Service.)
14

Sharon Ritter, Research/Management Coordinator and

Assistant ECO-Report Editor, Bitterroot National Forest and

BEMRP, Hamilton, MT

In an ecosystem, everything is connected to everything

else in ways that we can just barely begin to comprehend. This

interconnection helps sustain ecosystems over the long-term, so

that often something that threatens one part of the system

threatens all of it. Scientists from different disciplines need to

work together to understand ecosystems’ complexities and

interrelationships. The more we understand, the better we can

predict what may happen if something changes in an

ecosystem, such as our management actions or invasion of an

exotic organism.

BEMRP encourages research that integrates various

disciplines. A great example is a project headed by Yvette

Ortega, in collaboration with Dean Pearson and Kevin

McKelvey from the Wildlife Ecology Research Work Unit,

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula. Their project

studies impacts of weeds on migratory birds, insects, and native

bunchgrasses and forbs. It also assesses effects of herbicide

treatments aimed at controlling knapweed. The project started

with and continues to receive BEMRP funding, and it has

attracted many times more dollars from outside grants because

of its interdisciplinary approach and practical value to land

managers. Yvette and the Lolo National Forest worked together

to find a number of study areas meeting their requirements—

similar vegetation community types, some infested with

spotted knapweed and others mostly knapweed-free; accessible

for study; and at approximately the same elevation.

They also tend to be steep. Greg Jones and I visited a

couple of Yvette’s study sites in June 2004. Although Greg and

I consider ourselves in good shape, we still huffed and puffed

behind Yvette, who climbs those hills daily. Fortunately, there

were plenty of wildflowers to marvel over while I caught my

breath, and the morning fog cooled us.

Yvette chose the chipping sparrow as the focal bird species

because it is a common inhabitant of native grasslands that

have scattered ponderosa pines and shrubs. Chipping sparrows

Of Birds, Bugs, and Weeds

Getting the Word Out

Yvette Ortega and Greg Jones, BEMRP Program leader, record

information on chipping sparrows at one of the research sites that is

mostly knapweed free. (Photo by Sharon Ritter.)

Chipping sparrow with color bands, used to uniquely identify

individual birds. (Photo by Aubree Benson.)

are easy to observe and common enough to get a good sample

size. It is an insectivore during the summer breeding period

and a seed eater the rest of the time. It feeds on the ground and

nests in trees and shrubs, so it’s dependent upon several

resources in the study area.

Yvette is clearly tuned into the nuances of chipping

sparrow calls and behaviors. She and her crew previously

found and marked nests in various stages of construction, and

now she checked them to determine their status. By recording

nest statistics such as starting date, commencement of

incubation, hatching date, number of eggs, and so on, she is

able to have a complete record of most if not all chipping

sparrows using the study plots. She and her crew also have

mist nets set up to capture birds. Yvette and crew broadcast

chipping sparrow songs and calls from speakers placed on

either side of the net. So, if a bird approaches one side of the

net, they can switch on the speaker on the opposite side and

hope the bird flies into the net in pursuit of the supposed

intruder. They mark the birds with colored bands to identify

them. All of this—nest-watching, mist-netting (capturing birds

in nets), reading bands—takes a lot of patience. The day we

were there, the crew sat huddled in a light mist, frustrated by a

bird that kept coming close to, but never into the net.

Yvette also showed us the insect traps that she is

monitoring, in collaboration with Diana Six from the

University of Montana. They want to know how the presence

or absence of knapweed and the application of herbicides

affect insect populations.

Yvette has found that knapweed invasions decrease the

abundance of some plant groups such as native bunchgrasses

and perennial forbs (particularly arrowleaf balsamroot, a major

seed resource for birds and mammals), but not annual forbs.

She also found that chipping sparrows in knapweed-infested

sites had reduced abundance, delayed breeding, reduced

reproductive success, and reduced site fidelity. This long-term

research study, with data on pre- and post-treatments with

herbicides, will give her the data to assess our ability to

mitigate ecological impacts of knapweed invasion.
15

Getting the Word Out

Brooke Thompson, Fire Management

Officer, retired, Bitterroot National

Forest, Stevensville, MT

The tall pines and gentle slopes of

Lick Creek have a fascinating story to

tell, much of it well documented. Simple

to find and easy to tour in almost any

vehicle, the Lick Creek Demonstration/

Research Forest lets visitors immerse

themselves in a pleasant outdoor

recreational experience that leaves them a

bit better informed and more appreciative

of how they relate to the natural world

around them. Anyone interested in

driving through a stunningly beautiful,

well-managed ponderosa pine forest

should check out this updated,

informative tour opportunity. Situated on

the Bitterroot National Forest’s Darby

Ranger District, and adjacent to the

popular Lake Como recreation site, the

Lick Creek autotour offers much to a

recreational visitor as well as the serious

student of forest resources.

The first Lick Creek timber sale

occurred here during 1906 to 1909.

Besides being the first National Forest

timber offering of its size (37 million

board feet) in the ponderosa pine forest type, this sale had the

distinction of being visited by Gifford Pinchot, first chief of the

Forest Service, who provided instructions for selecting trees to

be harvested.

After the sale, a Washington Office Forest Service

photographer documented resultant stand conditions in a

number of locations within the sale. Since that time, repeat

photography from the same points provides a remarkable

record of vegetative development and forest succession that has

few, if any, equals in any forest type in the world.

Beginning in the 1940s, forest researchers established

permanent plots for monitoring stand growth following harvest,

plots which still exist and provide data to the present. More

recently, researchers have begun looking at more components

and processes of Lick Creek’s ecosystem, including effects of

thinning treatments and prescribed burning on vegetation

development, wildlife forage and cover, bird populations, tree

growth, and nutrient flux. Even social scientists have used the

area to measure public reaction to various vegetative

treatments.

In 1994, Forest Service researchers from the Intermountain

(now Rocky Mountain) Research Station, together with

Bitterroot National Forest managers and faculty from the

University of Montana’s School of Forestry (now College of

Forestry and Conservation), established the Bitterroot

Ecosystem Management Research Project

(BEMRP). This project, largely an

outgrowth of years of research at Lick

Creek, provides an opportunity for

collaboration and an avenue of dialogue

for researchers and managers as they

focus on applied research that informs

management opportunities and decisions.

Nearly 15 years ago, the Bitterroot

Forest developed a driving tour with an

interpretative brochure for Lick Creek.

Now, BEMRP and the Forest are

revitalizing the tour by issuing an updated

brochure that should add greatly to the

enjoyment and understanding of this

wonderful “outdoor classroom.” The tour

highlights Lick Creek’s value in showing

both the dynamic characteristics of our

forest resources and revealing how

research and management have

intertwined here to increase

understanding of our natural forest

ecosystems.

We expect completion of this project

will enhance use and enjoyment of this

unique area by providing “user friendly”

learning opportunities for students as well

as visitors at Lake Como recreational

facilities. Look for the newly marked tour

stops and brochure, available on site and at Darby Ranger

Station, to be in place by early 2006.

Brochure Update

Lick Creek Demonstration/Research Forest Driving Tour

A 1909 photopoint on the Lick Creek Demonstration Research Forest

on the Bitterroot National Forest. (Photo courtesy of USDA Forest

Service. )
16

Glossary – “What Do You Mean By That?”

Getting the Word Out

ALLUVIAL FAN – a fan-shaped sediment deposit at the bottom

of a drainage.

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.

BROADCAST BURN – Using fire over an entire unit to reduce

natural fuels or logging residue or to restore ecosystem function.

CUT-TO-LENGTH YARDING – A method of harvesting trees

by removing branches and tops and cutting logs to specific lengths

before moving them to the “landing” prior to transport.

DISTURBANCE PROCESS MODEL – A computer model—for

example, SIMPPLLE—of processes, typically at landscape scales,

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 ECO-Report, this glossary may help. If you

don’t find the word here, visit BEMRP’s Glossary web page at 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.

Tracy Hollingshead . . . (from page 11)

really get the sense of it when you drive up Laird Creek.” She

praises both the Laird Creek Forest Discovery Site Project

being developed by University of Montana professor and

extension forester, Peter Kolb, and the Trapper Bunkhouse

Land Stewardship Project (Trapper Bunkhouse) (see articles on

pp. 3 and 20).

 The Trapper Bunkhouse Project, containing BEMRP

research activities, allows us “to see how that research can be

used to monitor our management. I think it’s a great thing to

have that tie with research.” Tracy embraces such landscape

level analysis projects and sees a real need “to have research

help us focus our management and our monitoring.” She thinks

researchers can help the Forest develop standardized

monitoring protocols or plans that can be realistically

accomplished.

Off-work, Tracy and her husband, Mark, like to camp,

snowmobile, cross-country ski, and travel to new places,

sometimes with their 12-year-old chocolate Lab, Nikki. Once

very active in a Wyoming Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Chapter, the couple plans to become involved with the

Foundation’s Bitterroot Chapter.

In sum, Tracy’s vision for the Sula District includes

“furthering collaboration efforts with different interests and the

public, looking at the burned area and restoration opportunities

that exist within the large landscape of burned trees, and

continuing our fuel reduction treatments.” Tracy’s vision is

landscape sustainability—a big picture way of doing business.

that includes 1) natural disturbances such as fire, insects, and

diseases that affect distribution of vegetation and 2) human-caused

disturbances such as vegetation treatment and cattle grazing.

FIRE BEHAVIOR MODEL – A model that predicts the rate and

direction of fire spread and fire intensity. FLAMMAP, MTT, and

TOM are examples of fire behavior models.

GIS MAPPING – Computer software for mapping and analysis

of spatial relationships.

INCREMENT CORE – A quarter- to third-inch diameter column

of wood taken from a tree trunk, usually for examining growth

rings and sometimes age.

LANDSCAPE PROCESSES – Physical and biological systems

that work together at a moderately large scale (a “landscape” can

encompass most of a major watershed, like the Bitterroot River, or

a subset of that major watershed). Landscape processes determine

patterns of vegetation and stream networks in a watershed. They

include things like fire, insects, and diseases that change

vegetation, vegetative succession, and physical variables like

climate (affected by slope, aspect, and elevation).

MICRO-SITES – VERY small areas in the environment that may

have special characteristics different from the general landscape,

such as more moisture.

RHIZOME – an underground stem that produces leaves on the

upper side and roots on the lower side.

SLASH BUNDLER – a relatively new piece of equipment

developed in Scandinavia that collects and bundles forest residue

in the forest for utilization in biomass burning industry.

SPATIAL DATA – An electronic map of environmental or

demographic information.

SPATIAL LANDSCAPE MODEL – A computer model—for

example, SIMPPLLE—of landscape processes that includes

spatially explicit data.

SPATIAL OPTIMIZATION MODEL – A computer model—for

example, MAGIS—that uses mathematical optimization to find

the ‘best’ solution based on objectives entered by the user and

quantities calculated by the model (these quantities could include

vegetation parameters, economics, and resource benefits).

WHOLE-TREE YARDING – A method of harvesting trees by

cutting and moving the entire tree to a “landing” where its

branches and tops are removed in preparation for transport.
17

Getting the Word Out

Janie Canton-Thompson, Social Scientist

and ECO-Report Editor, R5, Recreation

Solutions Enterprise Team, Missoula, MT

“I’m really interested in how people are

engaged in decision making and ... in

understanding their relationship to the

environment at a local level. Whether that’s

resource advisory councils, collaborative

groups, or community forestry, it’s all about

how people in proximity to the forest

participate in decisions about that forest.”

The trail that led University of Montana

(UM) Social Scientist Jim Burchfield, a

BEMRP Executive Committee member, to

turn from timber production and silviculture

to “people and forests” started with cows.

Jim was raised in Adrian, MI, a small

farming town near Ann Arbor where a

friend’s father owned a dairy. This man

became one of Jim’s most valuable mentors.

When he worked at the dairy during his

high school summers, he learned “what a

connection to the land means,” the bonds of

friendship, and a sense of place.

Based on a childhood fascination with space travel, Jim

studied aerospace engineering at the University of Michigan.

Not for long though. While camping, he encountered some

foresters by chance who, in conversation, “wed the outdoors

with an actual income-generating vocation. I thought, ‘It’s too

good to be true.’”

Jim graduated with a bachelor’s degree in Forest

Management in 1973 and immediately became a junior forester

for the Ontonagon District, Ottawa National Forest, in

Michigan. There, he fought his first fire and got married.

 The young couple, seeking adventure, became Peace

Corps volunteers in a remote Guatemalan village, spending 4

years operating a bee keeping cooperative with the Mayan

Indians. Here, he learned what land management, resource

conservation, power, geopolitics, and “living poor” really

mean. “It was enormously transforming. The thing I learned

was you’ve got to have production before you have

conservation. You cannot expect people to starve while

watching the trees grow.”

In 1978, Jim became a timber forester on the Wayne

Hoosier National Forest in Ohio. During a fire assignment in

the western United States, he fell in love with the mountains

and big trees, and in 1980 he obtained a silviculturist job on the

Mount Baker/Snoqualmie Forest in Washington. While there,

Jim completed his master’s work in silviculture at the

University of Washington. In 1984, he became Director of the

International Seminar on Forest Administration and

Management, a Forest Service program in the International

Forestry Division involving training in tropical forest

management.

Soon, Jim became interested in community participation

and grassroots decision making on forestry issues. Hooked on

getting his PhD in “natural resources and

sociology,” Jim completed his degree at

University of Michigan with a comparative

study of the structure, function, and

leadership of woodland owner associations.

His interest is now “people and forests,” but

he still calls himself “a multiple use guy,”

believing “if we act with a reasonable

amount of humility we can actually intervene

in forests.”

In 1991, Jim went to the Washington

Office as the International Forestry

Division’s first policy analyst. There, he

became a liaison between the Forest Service

and Mexico and did several projects in

Mexico, Brazil, and Puerto Rico.

Desiring to be closer to family in the

Pacific Northwest, he secured a social

scientist position on the Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project

(ICBEM) in Walla Walla, WA, in 1994.

Teamed with UM social science professor

Steve McCool, whom he describes as an

outstanding researcher, mentor, and friend, they studied “the

spectacular transformation” happening in the West in the early

1990s. One of their colleagues exclaimed, “Change [in the

West] is happening faster than we can create categories to

describe it.” During this time, they discovered the forest’s role

in people’s lives is much more complex than just providing

timber. They also learned that “community stability was not

relevant because there is no such thing as community stability.

What there is, is the capacity to adapt. That’s what federal

policy should be addressing.”

For political reasons, the ICBEM Project collapsed in mid1995. Loaded with research data, Jim traveled around the West

making presentations. After a presentation in Missoula, MT, he

decided to apply for Director of the Bolle Center for People

and Forests, a newly created position at UM. It was tough to

leave the Forest Service, but the job perfectly matched Jim’s

interests, and he joined the then School of Forestry faculty in

1996.

As Director of the Bolle Center, he became involved with

BEMRP which supported some of his research. In BEMRP, he

found a “wonderful cluster of social scientists working in

natural resources who were on the cutting edge of the field.”

Besides studying communities, forests, and collaborative

decision making, Jim volunteered his services to “local groups

who wanted to participate in grassroots decision making about

their communities’ change,” and studied how communities

responded to wildfire following the fires of 2000.

In 2003, Jim became Associate Dean of UM’s renamed

College of Forestry and Conservation. He currently teaches

classes in collaboration in natural resource decisions, focusing

on “understanding the basic drivers regarding humans’

relationship to the environment.” He is also planning to teach

“People and Forests:” How They Fit Together

(continued on page 18)

Jim Burchfield, Associate Dean of the

College of Forestry and Conservation,

University of Montana, Missoula. (Photo

by Theron Miller.)
18

BEMRP Activities . . . (from page 20) that treatments occur by fall 2006 or field season 2007. Studies

such as these provide a knowledge base for designing and

evaluating impacts of future fuel and forest health restoration

treatments.

In addition to the Trapper Bunkhouse Project, BEMRP’s

cooperating research units have completed some of their

studies and continued work on other ongoing research in 2005.

These studies address a variety of ecosystem-related topics,

including “Ecosystem Management and Invasive Plants: Weed

and Biocontrol Impacts on Small Mammals and Efficacy of

Herbicide Treatment for Restoration,” “Riparian Area

Dynamics and Disturbance Processes,” “Modeling Alternative

Biomass Volumes and Costs from Fuel and Forest Restoration

Treatments,” and “Mapping Place Meanings on the Bitterroot

National Forest—a Landscape Level Assessment of Social

Value Input to Fuel Hazard Reduction Treatments.” This issue

of ECO-Report includes reports about some of the ongoing

research.

In other activities, BEMRP sponsored two half-day

sessions at the Northern Region Training Academy, one on

post-fire research results and the other on fuel reduction

research results. Both were very well attended. RMRS selected

BEMRP as its representative to provide a display at the White

House Conference on Cooperative Conservation in St. Louis,

Missouri, at the end of August. BEMRP also submitted a

proposal for RMRS conservation education funding and

received support for a student-designed and student-conducted

habitat restoration project at the Willoughby 40 site southeast

of Stevensville, Montana. The project was funded and will

provide plants and signs for the site. Finally, the BEMRP

website (www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecopartner/) has been updated,

including progress reports, publications lists, glossary, and

current events. Check it out.

an introductory course on ecological issues—“how we got

where we are in the environment and what kinds of choices we

have to face in the future. ... I have a great job!” he exclaimed.

Collaboration with graduate students on research

concerning people and forests, and psychological meanings

associated with attachment to places, is important to Jim. He

also remains involved in community service by volunteering to

facilitate meetings to help people “negotiate a reasonable

course of action [in natural resource decisions].”

Jim noted that during the past decade, public lands have

come to be administered by a coalition of interests, with a

growing number of organizations engaged in “face to face

democracy.” He believes community-level decision making can

work if it’s organized right—not a “free-for-all” with everyone

in the room promoting his/her own interests. People can solve

seemingly intractable problems by being honest and

straightforward, using experts for information and to correct

erroneous assumptions, and meeting in a context of mutual

respect, information, guided deliberation, and support. While

there are no ideal solutions, facilitators who tailor their

approach to each community can help make grassroots politics

a meaningful experience for people.

Three landmark events have influenced Jim’s career:

working for the remarkable dairy farmer, “seeing people make

a living from the land and understanding the pressure they face

to survive” (Peace Corps), and participating in a collaborative

group composed of Forest Service and county government

officials in southwestern Montana’s Ruby Valley. In the latter,

he realized that despite significant differences in backgrounds

and interests, people “had a lot in common in their expectations

for the land.” In the future, Jim wants to work more on the

sociology of community-based natural resource management.

He also intends to ensure that his students understand ecology

and social process so that they can knowledgeably contribute to

environmental sustainability and understand why others relate

to their environment the way they do.

Down the road, Jim wants more involvement with

Missoula Valley growth and development. Then there’s

rafting, swimming, biking, and enjoying his

wife, Melissa, and two children, Erin and

Alex. “I’m optimistic about the future,”

he says. I really think that the

process of discovery is helping

us to make better decisions.”

People and forests—they are

Jim’s passion and they fit

together.

Getting the Word Out

People and Forests . . . (from page 17)

Figure 1 – Schematic diagram for a study plot within the research

portion of the Trapper Bunkhouse Project. There would be 3

replications (study plots) of this design. Box shapes are not

representative of the shapes of the eventual units on the ground. Unit

sizes for vegetation treatments would average 10 acres. (Graphic by

Greg Jones.)
19

Getting the Word Out

Sharon Ritter, Research/Management Coordinator and ECOReport Assistant Editor Bitterroot National Forest and

BEMRP, Hamilton, MT

When Steve Arno retired, he knew he

had two books in his head. The first,

published in 2002, was Flames in Our

Forest: Disaster or Renewal? with Stephen

Allison-Bunnell. They built the case that fire

is a natural disturbance process in western

forests that we have for too long railed

against and now need to accept as a key to

sustainably maintaining many of our forest

ecosystems. In Mimicking Nature’s Fire:

Restoring Fire-Prone Forests in the West,

Arno and Carl Fiedler take the next step by

advocating a management approach based on

historical natural processes, primarily fire.

The preface presents brief

autobiographies of the authors. These

glimpses into their backgrounds are

important because these are not just two guys

giving their opinions. Arno is a forest

ecologist who conducted research at the Fire

Sciences Lab, Rocky Mountain Research

Station, in Missoula, MT. Fiedler is a

research professor of silviculture in the

College of Forestry and Conservation at the

University of Montana. Both came to their

conclusions about the role of fire and restoration forestry through

decades of observing forests and their management, conducting

research, questioning what they had been taught in school, and

thinking outside the traditional forestry “box.” They call this new

approach restoration forestry, defined as “the practice of

reinstituting an approximation of historical structure and

ecological processes to tree communities that were in the past

shaped by distinctive patterns of fire. The intent is not to re-create

a single, distinct ‘historical condition’ but rather a range of

conditions representative of historical conditions.”

Each forest type has a different natural disturbance regime,

and they dedicate an early chapter to describing the three fire

regimes prevalent in western forests: understory, mixed-severity,

and stand-replacement. Historically, 40 percent of the total forest

area experienced an understory fire regime; currently only 15

percent does. On the other hand, historically 20 percent of the

forest area experienced a stand-replacement fire regime; that has

increased to 50 percent. More than 100 million acres of fireprone western forests harbor deteriorating conditions outside the

historical range of variability. Restoration forestry needs to start

with an understanding of how each of the fire regimes historically

affected patchiness, understory species, species composition, and

age-class structures. It also needs an understanding of how

decades of fire suppression and exclusion have altered these

features.

The first five chapters of the book provide a lesson in

ecological and management principles. When researching

information for these chapters, Arno and

Fiedler found very little in the forestry

literature. “There’s nothing else like it out

there,” said Arno at a talk shortly after the

book came out. This confirmed their belief

that land managers and private landowners

needed a practical book like this. Chapter 5,

“Restoration Objectives, Techniques, and

Economics,” compares traditional timber

management with restoration management,

providing a brief “how to” guide to getting

started.

The authors make a case for why we

can’t leave the forests alone to heal

themselves: “Even if we could allow all

lightning fires to burn everywhere—a

practical impossibility—the landscape-scale

modification and fragmentation of fuels

brought about by livestock grazing,

development, and roads now greatly

constrain the natural spread of fire. Probably

half of all western forests have missed

natural fire cycles while also having been

altered by logging, so lightning fires today

burn hotter and cause greater mortality than

fires of the past.”

The meat of the book is a look at real-world forest restoration

projects taking place in a variety of forest types and fire regimes in

the West: pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine/fir, giant sequoia/mixed

conifer, western larch/fir, lodgepole pine, whitebark pine, and

aspen. Arno and Fiedler remind the reader of the historical fire

regime for each forest type and provide a history of past

management that resulted in conditions requiring restoration

forestry. They also discuss the political background leading up to

decisions to treat forest stands and describe the management

prescription applied and how it looks now.

Arno and Fiedler admit in their conclusion that these

demonstration sites only include a tiny percentage of the forests

needing attention and only provide benefits at the stand level.

What we need, they argue, is restoration over much larger

landscapes of the West. “Only then can the natural disturbance

processes such as fire, insects, and disease operate in ways that are

healthy and sustainable.”

Mimicking Nature’s Fire: Restoring Fire-Prone Forests in the West

by Stephen F. Arno and Carl E. Fiedler. Published in 2005 by

Island Press, Washington, D.C. 242 pages. ISBN: 1-55963-142-2.

Available in hard cover ($49.95) and paperback ($24.95).

A Review of

Mimicking Nature’s Fire:

Restoring Fire-Prone

Forests in the West
20

ECO-Report

Bitterroot Ecosystem Management

Research Project

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

800 E. Beckwith St.

Missoula, MT 59801

Program Leader’s Note

BEMRP Activities in 2005

(continued on page 18)

Greg Jones, Project Unit Leader and BEMRP Program

Leader, RMRS, Economic Aspects of Forest Management

on Public Lands, Missoula, MT

In keeping with our roots, BEMRP is cooperating with the

Bitterroot National Forest to launch a new multi disciplinary

landscape project—the Trapper Bunkhouse Land Stewardship

Project (Trapper Bunkhouse). Proposed by the Bitterroot

Forest, the Trapper Bunkhouse Project would undertake

vegetation management to reduce severe wildland fire risk and

restore/maintain forest health in the National Forest area

between Trapper and Bunkhouse Creeks in the southern

Bitterroot Mountains. Within its scope, the project includes

site-specific, on-the-ground research concerning soil

compaction, nutrient cycling, establishment of weeds,

response of residual vegetation to treatments, and effectiveness

of treatments in reducing the likelihood of catastrophic fire.

In conjunction with this project, BEMRP researchers have

been testing interaction of three types of spatial landscape

models to predict 1) how fire will move on the current

landscape, 2) how this will change with forest growth, insects,

and disease, and 3) where to place vegetation treatments over

time to reduce the likelihood of undesirable severe fire and

improve forest health. (See article on page 3 for more details

on this work.)

A small portion of the Trapper Bunkhouse Project is

comprised of a BEMRP study with replicated tests of on-theground treatments (see fig. 1 on page 18). This research

focuses on treatments and effects in the frequent low-intensity

fire regime forests common in the lower elevations of the

Bitterroot Valley. Vegetation treatments include: 1) control

with no treatments, 2) removal of understory ladder fuels by

hand cutting, 3) commercial thinning using whole-tree

yarding that removes ladder fuels and some larger trees,

resulting in a “most desirable trees” stand having a density of

40 to 60 square feet of basal area (emulating historical

conditions), and 4) commercial thinning using a cut-to-length

yarding system with the same objectives as treatment 3. Other

treatments associated with areas to be thinned include: a) cut

material is eliminated by “pile and burn” or broadcast burn,

b) skid trails are treated with mulch or slash mats or left

untreated, and c) “pile burn” micro-sites are treated with

mulch and/or unburned soil or left untreated. Research

questions include impacts of vegetation treatments on soil

compaction and nutritional qualities, potential for weed

invasion, health and vigor of the resulting stands of trees, and

effectiveness in reducing the probability of severe wildfire.

This project is in the planning stages, and we are

collecting pre-treatment data this year and next. We propose

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

prohibits discrimination in all its programs and

activities on the basis of race, color, national

origin, age, disability, and where applicable,

sex, marital status, familial status, parental

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or

because all or part of an individual’s income

is derived from any public assistance program.

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of

program information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)

795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider

and employer.