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

Inside

One Ranger’s Experience in Summer 2000

“You couldn’t train for the scale of fires we had this year.”

How does one capture

77 days of a ranger’s life

as he coped with a scale of

wildfire never before seen

on the Bitterroot National

Forest? Prior experience

as Division Supervisor and

Safety Officer on Incident

Management Teams gave

Darby/Sula District

Ranger Craig Bobzien a

mere inkling of what he

would face last summer.

His familiarity with fire

strategy, tactics, and

staffing gave him an edge

at a time when downsizing

created a scarcity of

wildfire experience.

Before the summer began, Bobzien knew it would be a bad fire

year. All forecasts and on-the-ground conditions indicated it.

Early last spring, Bobzien and district fire staff began

tracking fuel moistures and the energy release component (ERC),

which measures forest fuels volatility. All indicators showed fire

potential was several weeks ahead of schedule. By the end of July,

ignition sources were the only remaining ingredient needed for a

big fire year. Bobzien’s own words set the stage:

 “About early July I talked with Forest Supervisor Rodd

Richardson and indicated I’d like to get back involved with fire

in some capacity but he said, ‘I think this is a good year to stay

close to home.’ That turned out to be prophetic. This summer

there were fourteen Incident Management Teams on the

District. That’s not counting five others with partial responsibilities for fires on the District.”

 “July 31st! That’s the day I’ll always remember. Charlie

Miller, District Assistant Fire Management Officer, and I went

up Skalkaho-Rye Road to look at the large Cougar Fire, as it

backed its way west from the Deer Lodge Forest. As we drove

up Rye Creek, the serviceberry under the forest canopy was in

fall colors already, kind of crumpled and brown. And we both

said, ‘It looks like September after the first frost.’ Everything

just looked crispy. We stopped

in the old Sleeping Child Burn

area. Charlie took the fuel

moisture reading on the

thousand-hour fuels. Six

percent! Fifteen to twenty

percent would be more normal.

Then we continued on to the very

highest elevation

north slope, under

a mature sprucefir forest canopy

about fifty feet

from a stream. We

took the thousand

hour fuel moisture

there. Eight

percent! I said,

‘Well, Charlie, it’s

not if; it’s just a

matter of when!’ ”

 As Miller and

Bobzien wound

their way back down, their conversation was peppered with “what

ifs.” Nearing the valley, they saw the Blodgett Fire take off on an

adjoining district and heard their pickup radio become active.

Bobzien recalls Miller’s exclamation: “ ‘Oh, my God!’ We looked

up and it was just black to the south of us. That was the cell that

started all the fires on July 31.”

Bobzien’s story could fill a book. For 77 days he never left

the Valley. He slept with a map of the fires. Even on his day off, he

fielded phone calls constantly. He rarely slept more than four

hours a night and, like others, was “running on adrenalin for

weeks, and appealing

to an inner strength”

to keep going.

August 1st was

another memorable

Valley Complex Fire near Darby, Montana, August 13, 2000.

Photo by Karen Wattenmaker.

Ranger Craig Bobzien

in smoke and fire at

Sula Ranger Station on

August 6, 2000.

(continued on page 2)

• BEMRP Response .................... (p. 3)

• Structure Protection Insights.. (p. 3)

• Intriguing Investigation ........... (p. 9)

• The “Spotlight” ...................... (p. 13)
2

One Ranger’s Experience . . . (from page 1)

Trees torching in the Valley Complex Fire near

Darby, Montana, August 19, 2000. Photo by

Karen Wattenmaker.

day. Bobzien pulled everybody off the fires, which were running

wild. One hand crew was cut off from their vehicle and hiked out.

Behind lay their burned vehicle.

 Bobzien told how Valley residents lived for the rare clear

days, which brought only anxiety to fire officials who knew

“those would be the days when the fires would just rip.” During

days when smoke was thick enough to cut it with a knife, the fires

lay low.

Then came the big fire day, August 6th. “It was Sunday. It

started out real clear, and smoke had drifted out of the fire camps.

Everyone said, ‘This is going to be a big fire day!’ I don’t think

they knew then just how big it was going to be.” International

media were in the area. The Forest business management team

was doing a review at the Sula Complex Camp when the entire

canyon along Highway 93 was overrun by fire. The fire swept

through the Incident Command Post area, and spot fires were

everywhere. Everyone lay down in a safe place to weather the

firestorm. “We worked on into the night. I recall just the glow as I

went along. It was so smoky. I think there were well over fifty

homes lost that day.” Bobzien saw firefighters stay to the bitter

end to protect homes. Only when flames reached 150 feet from

the homes, and “the

third call” came, did

they pull back. One

homeowner called his

saved house “a little

brown house in a sea

of charred sticks.”

Bobzien has only

praise for community

residents. “For all the

loss and anxiety, they

really pulled together.

People were continually asking what they

could do to help.

There were many,

many unsung heroes.”

They baked bread and

cookies and made

donations to

firefighters. “Thank

you firefighters” signs

sprang up everywhere. However,

some questioned why

firefighters did not

extinguish fires. Putting this issue into context, Bobzien noted that

in mid-July the Forest had 30 hand crews available to work the

8,000-acre Little Blue Fire. By early August, only eight hand

crews were here to work the 130,000-acre Valley Complex

because of countless other fires burning elsewhere.

His experience with the wildfires of 2000 has given Bobzien

“just a little teaser” of what people encounter in war and caused

him to “honor and reflect on people dealing with chaos.” Bobzien

believes the calming influence exerted by Incident Management

Teams, Sheriff’s officials, and Rural Fire Chiefs helped people

cope with the turmoil.

The fires of 2000 will reshape forest ecosystems and resource

management approaches, both in the short term and long term.

They have and will continue to reshape human lives as well. Fire

recovery is well under way and will persist intensively for at least

the next three to five years. Someday, the hallmark of a true

Bitterrooter will be one who answers, “yes,” to the question, “Did

you live here when the Bitterroot burned?”

Craig Bobzien facilitating community input to fire recovery process,

Darby, Montana. Photo by Nan Christianson.

Valley Complex Fire into the trees, August 13, 2000. Photo by Karen

Wattenmaker.

Symposium Proceedings Available

The Bitterroot Ecosystem Management Research Project: What We

Have Learned, edited by Helen Smith, has been published. Savor

this smorgasbord of papers on topics presented at the 1999 BEMRP

Symposium. Gain new insights on vegetation, fauna, human

dimensions, and landscape modeling. Learn about other Ecosystem

Management (EM) Projects and delve into the historical/philosophical context of EM. Secure a copy by writing to Rocky Mountain

Research Station, 324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 84401 or call 970-

498-1392.

Smith, Helen Y., ed. 1999. The Bitterroot Ecosystem Management

Research Project: What We Have Learned. 1999 May 18-20;

Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P17. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

154 p.
3

Greg Jones, Program Leader

RMRS, BEMRP

The Bitterroot fires of 2000 will not

be soon forgotten! They will have a

lasting effect on the landscape, having

burned 378,000 acres across all ownerships and 307,000 acres on the Bitterroot

National Forest alone. How does this

effect BEMRP?

First, a significant part of BEMRP’s

past and ongoing research has addressed

fuel treatment by applying a variety of

treatments on the ground in Lick Creek,

Larry Creek, and Sawmill drainages, as

well as on the face between Fred Burr

and Bear Creeks. In addition, landscape

modeling has addressed fuel treatment

strategies, effectiveness of fuel treatments relative to predicted acres burned

with and without treatment, suppression

costs relative to fuel treatment costs with

and without treatment, and the combined

effects of wildfire and fuel treatments on

resource values such as sediment

production and big game habitat.

BEMRP Program Leader, Greg Jones, presents

at Regional Training Academy in Missoula,

Montana. Photo by Janie Canton-Thompson.

2000 Southwestern Montana Wildfires

The BEMRP Response

The 2000 fires have created tremendous new opportunities for learning about

effects of fire, human interaction with fire,

and results of salvage and post-fire

rehabilitation treatments. Likewise, they

also provide opportunities for testing fire

behavior prediction models. Numerous

research units in the Rocky Mountain

Research Station and the University of

Montana expect to receive research

funding for these purposes. A key role for

BEMRP will be coordinating research

efforts among the various research units

and the Bitterroot National Forest. The

exact form of this coordination is still

being worked out, but may include a

“boundary spanner” position. This

position could be a conduit for sharing

information, developing common-interest

databases, and collaborating to design,

measure, and monitor future land

management treatments. We are excited

about the opportunities and potential

payoffs of coordinating research with land

management!

“It’s the little things” that unravel health and relationships.

Research physical scientist Jack Cohen takes this truth one step

further: “I would say, with few exceptions, the burned houses I

investigated in the Bitterroot did not ignite from crown fires

directly. They ignited from the little things.” Cohen, one of the

developers of the current National Fire Danger Rating System

(NFDRS), has been doing fire behavior modeling since the mid

1970s, examining the dynamics of wildland fire and, more

specifically, the requirements for combustion. He maintains, “Fire

has a very intellectual, emotional, and physical attraction. Fire

gives us the ability to make our lives a great deal easier, for better

or for worse.”

 Since 1997 Cohen has been engaged in experiments in the

Northwest Territories to better understand the nature of crown

fires, in cooperation with the Northwest Territories and the

Canadian Forest Service. There in low elevation boreal forests,

researchers, after inventorying vegetation and fuel components,

have ignited prescribed crown fires and measured their spread

rates, heat emissions, flame temperatures, and wind velocities.

Following the fires, vegetation and fuels have been remeasured.

Cohen uses small, experimental wall sections and houses adjacent

to burn plots to compare actual and predicted ignition responses

to crown fires. These experiments allow him to fine-tune ignition

models which assess homes’ ignition potential during wildfires

and what can be done to reduce it.

Aftermath of the Fire Storm

Insights on Structure Protection

Cohen has discovered that burning embers, not raging crown

fires, typically ignite structures. This was true in most of the cases

he investigated in the Bitterroot last summer. Interestingly, most

wildfires had actually passed through an area before houses

A low ignition potential “Home Ignition Zone” reduces potential fire

destruction even if no vegetation fuel reduction occurs in the surrounding

wildlands.

(continued on page 4)
4

 ECO-Report

Published by the

Rocky Mountain Research Station

P. O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807

(406) 542-3248

Editor/Writer: Janie Canton-Thompson

The United States Department of

Agriculture, (USDA) Forest Service, is

a diverse organization committed to

equal opportunity in employment and

program delivery. USDA prohibits

discrimination on the basis of race,

color, national origin, sex, religion, age,

disability, political affiliation and

familial status. Persons believing they

have been discriminated against by

USDA should contact the Secretary,

U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, D.C. 20250, or call 202-

720-7327

Tom McWilliams (right), Fire Management

Officer, Palouse District, Clearwater National

Forest, discusses fire and fuels with Beta Club

members. Photo by Tami Parkinson.

Jane Kapler Smith,

RMRS, Fire Effects

Research

Tami Parkinson,

Clearwater National

Forest

Forest fires have beneficial

effects on the natural

environment: Basically

true? Basically false? Not

sure? What would you

answer? Would experiments and discussions

influence your response?

Tami Parkinson, Forest

Technician on the

Clearwater National Forest

and M.S. student at the

University of Idaho, wants

answers to these questions. Last spring, she hosted six public workshops in northern Idaho.

At each, she used a “pre-test” to quiz participants on their understanding of wildland fire

and attitudes about fire’s role in forests. Then Tami and several helpers set up “activity

centers” where participants investigated four topics: the nature of ecological communities,

the relationship of fire spread to slope and forest density, ways to reduce fire hazards around

homes, and how fuels relate to fire spread. The activities were adapted from FireWorks, an

educational trunk used in Montana and Idaho schools.

Sixty-one members of the public attended Tami’s workshops. After each workshop,

participants completed a “post-test” which could be compared to their earlier answers.

“Their feedback was positive except for the amount of time required,” said Parkinson.

“Throughout the program participants were eager to be involved. They asked great questions, which led to a variety of discussions about fire.”

A month after the workshop, Parkinson mailed a second post-test to each participant.

She is currently analyzing participants’ understanding and attitudes, searching for changes

that took place during the workshops and following month. “I am pleased with the results

and believe this is one method to reach out to adult audiences,” Tami commented. Watch for

her results in the next issue of Eco-Report.

burned. Ignitions started with the small things: pine needles

smoldering in a roof gutter or under a deck; burning embers

landing on wood piles, dried

shrubs, or board walks adjacent

to houses; and wood shavings

trailing from under a garage

door. These functioned

like a long fuse where

glowing combustion

crept slowly, much like

a hiker follows a trail to

a lake, until minutes to

hours later it became

flaming combustion

and consumed the

structure.

Because of

Aftermath of Fire Storm . . . (from page 3)

Learning About Fire

Tami Parkinson uses “matchstick forests” to demonstrate effects

of slope and forest density on fire spread at a public workshop in

St. Maries, Idaho. Photo by Tom McWilliams.

Cohen’s research, we can now reasonably protect houses from

burning by treating the area inside “the home ignition zone” (the

area within 100 to 200 feet of a home). Potential for home

ignitions from wildfire is determined by assessing ingredients

within this zone. During the 2000 wildfire season, Cohen produced a video called “Protecting Structures from Wildfire.”

Focusing on “the little things,” it shows what a homeowner can do

in 24 hours to improve a home’s chances of surviving an encroaching fire.

 In Cohen’s words, “This information affords us a lot more

options than we previously believed when we address keeping our

homes from burning down during wildfires. It allows the option of

separating landscape management from the management of our

home ignition zone.” The question remains: Are we willing to take

care of “the little things?” Cohen stated, “In the long term, I

envision that this problem will go away, that we can have wildfires

without residential fire disasters.” This assumes we will modify

fuels in home ignition zones to make them compatible with risk of

ignition from firebrands.
5

Comparison of fire severity between thinned (right) and unthinned forest

land (left). Photo by Janie Canton-Thompson.

existing weed patches can vector seeds.”

What can be done to assist fire-stricken landowners with

recovery? Kolb thinks it is important to realize fire is a landscape

level phenomenon. Weather, topography, and fuels determine

where fire spreads. Kolb asserts landowners must focus on fuels

manipulation, the only controllable option, considering two basic

scenarios. First, in a typical fire year, fuel management can

significantly impact fire behavior. Treatments include thinning,

spacing of trees, and fine fuel management in the understory

(grazing, brush control, and

understory burning).

However, in an extreme fire

summer like 2000, understory fuel management may

be less effective, and more

extensive measures are

needed to protect property

from rapidly moving crown

fires. These include creating

fuel breaks (irregular shaped

clearcuts) that can impact a

running crown fire and

strategic control of grass

fuels through grazing.

Kolb stated there was

ample warning about the

potential for severe wildfires

last summer. As early as

March 2000, officials began

advising the public of that

possibility. Kolb cooperated

with the Forest Service and other agencies on “Face the State,”

which aired on statewide T.V. in June, warning people of the

wildfire danger. He also sent a proposal to Sixty Minutes, which

reaches a nationwide television audience, and asserted, “...the

vast forests of Montana and Idaho...are a time bomb that will

make the recent fires in New Mexico look small.” He received no

response. “We were trying to get people’s attention.”

To further inform landowners about wildfire, Kolb is using

three approaches. He will produce a publication called “What

Every Landowner Needs to Know About Wildfire,” a video

covering the same materials, and also a series of workshops. To

learn more, contact Kolb at (406) 243-2773 or email

efpfk@forestry.umt.edu.

Peter Kolb examines hydrophobic

soils in severe burn area. Photo by

Janie Canton-Thompson.

The average citizen is very aware of the catastrophic fires that

blackened over 300,000 acres of the Bitterroot National Forest

during 2000. However, probably few comprehend private forestland impacts where more than 50,000 acres also burned. Peter

Kolb, Extension Forestry Specialist, has insights on the battle

facing private forest landowners as they recover from fire losses

and lay groundwork to reduce the risk or severity of future

wildfires.

Consider the cost of reseeding. The average severely burned

site requires 10 to 30 pounds of seed per acre, and preferred native

species grass seed costs $10 per pound, plus sowing expenses.

Kolb calculates reseeding 1,000 acres of severely burned forestland could easily exceed a quarter of a million dollars. Needless to

say, some landowners confront a grim situation.

Some will say, “Why not let nature reseed these lands?” Kolb

explained natural reseeding requires an available seed source and

receptive soils. Considering the magnitude of the fires, neither

may be available in time to avoid problems. The longer a burned

site lies unoccupied by preferred species, the greater the likelihood of noxious weed infestation. Kolb said abundance of weeds

like knapweed often doubles or triples following fire. One reason

for this is that wildlife will concentrate feeding activity in

unburned meadows, many of which already contain weeds. Weed

seeds stick to animals’ fur and may also be transported in their

digestive tracts. Kolb remarked, “Anything that walks through

Wildfire: No Respecter of Ownership Boundaries

Peter Rice, University of Montana, Division of Biological Sciences

Mick Harrington, RMRS, Fire Effects Research

Restoration of a unique ponderosa pine/bunchgrass ecosystem

has begun on the Bitterroot National Forest. The project area is in

the Sawmill Creek Research Natural Area (RNA) and permissible

management activities, guided by RNA policy, are limited. Both

its bunchgrass and forested canyon communities have experienced

dramatic conversions in biodiversity and plant community

structure in recent decades.

Sawmill Creek RNA Restoration

During the 1987 RNA designation process, researchers and

managers realized a number of invasive alien plants were present.

A 1994 weed mapping effort showed spotted knapweed had

spread throughout most of the 160 acres of montane grasslands.

Other noxious weeds were scattered throughout the grassland and

starting to infest the forest habitat types. An integrated weed

management plan was developed to facilitate restoration of native

plant communities and maintain elk winter range. Herbicides,

biocontrol insects, pulling/digging, and changes in use and access

(continued on page 6)
6

Pile burning to reduce ladder fuels in old growth ponderosa pine at

Sawmill RNA. Photo by Mick Harrington.

patterns were implemented to eradicate or suppress weeds.

Herbicide test plots, initiated during fall 1996, confirmed target

weeds could be controlled and native plants would respond

favorably to release from competition with weeds. Three years

after spraying, knapweed production was down over 90 percent on

test spray plots, while habitat type indicator species, primarily

bunchgrasses, increased dramatically. These results justified

treating 160 acres of the grasslands and forest ecotones (boundaries) in fall 1998. Effectiveness of spotted knapweed control was

96 percent, based on canopy cover of treated areas.

 When past fires burned regularly in the grassland, they spread

into the forested canyons and maintained open ponderosa pinedominant ecosystems in dry Douglas-fir habitat types. The forest

canyons have changed dramatically since the last landscape level

wildfire about 1914. Old growth ponderosa pine still dominates,

but the understory and midstory tree layers are mostly occupied by

dense groups of Douglas-fir. Many larger firs are dead or dying

from mistletoe, bark beetles, and root disease. Surface and ladder

fuels exist at hazardous levels. Even under moderate conditions, a

wildfire would kill many old pines. To address this problem,

Bitterroot National Forest staff, together with Rocky Mountain

Research Station scientists, designed forest restoration treatments.

The scientists will monitor pre- and post-treatment structure and

composition along with understory vegetation responses, paying

particular attention to the potential spread of noxious weeds from

adjacent grasslands.

Restoration cutting and piling of understory Douglas-fir was

completed and piles burned in late November, 1999. Larger firs,

which were clearly competing with ponderosa pines and could not

be harvested because logging is prohibited on RNA’s, were girdled

to relieve stress and reduce fire hazard. Trees per acre were

reduced from 277 to 96. Ponderosa pine now represents 55 percent

of the trees, and firs have been reduced by almost 80 percent. As

the grassland responds to reduced competition from spotted

knapweed, and the ladder fuel in forested canyons is lessened, fire

will be periodically returned to the RNA in the form of spring

prescribed burning.

Sawmill Creek Restoration . . . (from pg. 5)

Elaine Kennedy Sutherland, Project Leader

RMRS, Vegetation Research

While we consistently acknowledge the importance of riparian

systems in western landscapes, we have little concrete information

on how these areas functioned historically. To sustain these critical

areas, managers need to understand the processes that historically

operated and the frequency of their recurrence. We also lack basic

understanding of historic vegetation and aquatic patterns that

Research in Progress: Disturbance Regimes in the

Riparian Zones of Western Montana

resulted from those processes. Without such information, it is

difficult to support active management of riparian areas, and we

often fall back to the “hands off” approach. There is mounting

evidence that “fire suppression only” management has sometimes

led to unsustainable conditions and deterioration of habitat in these

critical wildlife areas. Fish management policies have put National

Forests in the position of needing strong supporting information to

manage Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas.

The need for information on riparian disturbance processes and

vegetation patterns extends throughout Region 1 and ultimately

should be provided for various stream types and geophysical

settings. We initiated a study in 2000 to address this problem. With

funding from BEMRP and Region 1, we are investigating disturbance processes as well as historic vegetation and aquatic patterns

in riparian areas on three National Forests (Bitterroot, Flathead, and

Lolo), covering various broad biophysical settings. We are trying

some practical approaches to stratifying riparian areas, gathering

data, and making sense of existing information. Work in 2000

focused on pulling together existing data and assembling GIS

coverages, includ-ing riparian disturbance elements (especially fire

history), vegetative composition, community structure, and

geomorphology. Work in 2001 will emphasize developing a firstlevel stratification of riparian areas. This will be used to begin

analysis of riparian patterns across the landscape, and to initiate

fieldwork to assess conditions of terrestrial and aquatic zones in

these strata. The actual information collected may also be extrapolated to similar riparian systems throughout the Region.

Forest riparian vegetation in transition to a dense conifer stand. Photo

by Mick Harrington.
7

Kevin McKelvey

RMRS, Wildlife Research

The National Forest

Management Act (NFMA)

requires the Forest Service to

maintain viable populations of all

vertebrate species throughout

their ranges on National Forest

lands. This mandate is increasingly framed in terms of monitoring the status of various species

over space and time. There are,

however, major hurdles associated with geographically

extensive monitoring of animals.

For most animal species, we have

not developed reliable means of

counting their numbers or demonstrating their presence within a

particular area. Science can currently provide little guidance

concerning how to best fulfill this legal mandate.

It is clear we cannot monitor all vertebrate species. For those

we can monitor, we can develop and test the necessary sampling

protocol, and prototype these implementations on large areas of

forested land. Currently, plans are to prototype a regional-scale

vertebrate monitoring protocol in north Idaho in conjunction with

testing of current vegetation monitoring methods. However, the

issue remains: what to monitor?

The Committee of Scientists,

a group of prestigious scientists

brought together to provide

guidance on this issue, suggested

that focal species be chosen. A

focal species is an organism of

particular importance for the

functioning of a natural ecosystem. Small changes in its density

have disproportionately large

effects on ecosystem properties

like stability, productivity, and

diversity. While these species

almost certainly exist, the logic

through which they would be

chosen is not worked out.

Additionally, important issues

like how many focal species need to be monitored within an

ecosystem before we can assert ecosystem stability based on their

dynamics are not understood.

Because these issues are important and unresolved scientifically, BEMRP has taken an active role in furthering this inquiry.

This year, BEMRP is supporting a symposium to bring together a

group of leading scientists to discuss these issues and propose a

way forward. This symposium is being organized by Dr. Barry

Noon, a member of the Committee of Scientists who took the lead

in formulating their focal species concepts. The symposium will

occur this winter in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Lynx wearing monitoring radio collar. Photo by John Squires.

Yvette Ortega and Kevin McKelvey

RMRS, Wildlife Research

Exotic organisms pose a major threat to global biodiversity

and have significant impacts on ecosystem function. Spotted

knapweed, our region’s most pervasive exotic weed, was introduced from Eurasia in 1923 and has spread to every county in

Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Knapweed invades

open areas, including savanna habitats within forest ecosystems.

Forest savannas are grasslands with scatterings of trees that

provide important habitat for numerous species. For example, elk

use them as winter ranges, and chipping sparrows move in to

breed in mid-May.

We are currently conducting a three-year study to examine

effects of exotic weeds on plants and animals of forest savannas.

Preliminary data analyses from eight study sites on the Lolo

National Forest indicate that knapweed is impacting native plant

communities by displacing native grasses such as bluebunch

wheatgrass, and native forbs, such as arrowleaf balsamroot. This

simplification of the native plant community may in turn impact

small mammals, birds, deer, and elk — all of which depend on

native plants for food and structure. Alterations in plant communities may similarly impact insects, which constitute an important

food source for small mammals and birds. Because of the interdeEvaluating Effects of Exotic Weeds and Restoration Treatments

on Plants and Animals of Forest Savannas

Research Highlights

pendency of plants, insects, small mammals, and birds, and their

important roles in forest systems, there are numerous potential

implications of weed invasion. We are currently collecting

detailed data on all these

components to understand

how exotic weed invasion

alters forest savannas.

In a related study, we

will use this multi-level

research approach to evaluate

the effects of management

strategies that employ

herbicide and prescribed fire

to restore historic conditions

within forest savannas.

Collectively, these studies

will enable us to assess the

ecological state of weed

invasion and the efficacy of

restoration treatments to

improve the management of

forest ecosystems. Red-tailed Chipmunk.

Photo by Dean Pearson.

Keeping in Touch with Wildlife

Workshop on Monitoring Efforts
8

 Warblers are small North

American songbirds that feed

primarily on insects. All are

brightly colored and known for

their warbling songs. Many

people are concerned about

potential declining populations,

based on habitat fragmentation or

loss. University of Montana

graduate student Amy Cilimburg

has been studying Yellow

Warblers in Montana to determine

if this population might be

declining.

Yellow Warblers are neotropical (wintering in new world

tropical areas) migrants that arrive

in Montana during May and depart for Mexico in August or

September. They nest in deciduous riparian areas. Like most

songbirds, they often build multiple nests during a season when

predators destroy their eggs or young. One cannot easily follow

warbler migration or movement because they are too small to

wear satellite trackers.

During the 1998 and 1999 Yellow Warbler breeding seasons,

Cilimburg and her field assistants reached their research site at

sunup to survey warblers. Throughout their morning watch, they

carefully listened for these tiny birds’ distinctive song to divulge

their location. They played a tape of a warbler song, and male

warblers, brighter and easier to see, typically responded aggressively. Once a warbler was located, the researchers used binoculars to determine if it wore colored leg bands, designed to

identify each bird.

The vigil provided valuable data on how faithful Yellow

Warblers are to their previous breeding sites. Scientists typically

assume most songbirds are very site

faithful. Remarked Cilimburg,

“Generally, the assumption is if the

bird doesn’t come back it’s probably

dead. We don’t know if it’s dead or if

it just decided to breed somewhere

else.” Cilimburg’s research indicates

some warblers that fail to return to

their previous breeding site may still

be alive in nearby areas. In 1999, she

found 30 percent of the returning birds

were located off the study site on

which they were banded, dispersing

from 0.1 to 24 km. She calls this

phenomenon “breeding dispersal” and

is entering her data into a statistical

program that will provide a better

estimate of warbler survival rates. To

some degree, warblers appear to have

a genetic tendency that steers them

back to the same breeding site. They

also may learn from previous experience and choose a different site next

Faithfulness of Songbirds The Perspective of Yellow Warblers

season, based on negative experiences. In view of increasing

habitat fragmentation, knowledge of breeding dispersal and

movement patterns will help scientists better estimate warbler

population trends and enable appropriate conservation measures.

Banded Yellow Warbler. Photo by

Amy Cilimburg

Example of site-faithfulness. Breeding

territory for one male at Bitterroot River site

#1 (Teller Wildlife Refuge). The bird was

not seen in 1997.

Example of breeding dispersal. Breeding

territory for one female in three consecutive

years. Darkened plots are Bitterroot River

study sites # 1 through 3.

Ecosystem Management Means Partnership

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

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

Greg Jones, Program Leader

Rocky Mountain Research Station

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

e-mail: jgjones@fs.fed.us

Sue Heald, Forest Planning Officer, Bitterroot National Forest

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

e-mail: sheald@fs.fed.us

Professor Robert Pfister

The University of Montana School of Forestry

Missoula, MT 59812 (406) 243-6582

e-mail: rpfister@forestry.umt.edu

Visit the Bitterroot Ecosystem Management Research Project on the Internet!

www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecopartner

Recording Yellow

Warbler data.

Photo by Milo

Burcham.
9

Lars Östlund, Associate Professor of Forest Ecology at

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Umeä, Sweden,

studies the effects of native peoples’ activities on forests of

Northern Scandinavia. He collaborates with archeologists,

historians, and ethnologists, and has been studying the practice of

peeling trees for food by native peoples in the northern hemisphere, prior to the 1900s. Having completed extensive research

on peeling among the Sami (Lapplanders) in Scandinavia, summer

of 2000 found Östlund in western Montana studying similar

practices that occurred in the Bitterroot Valley and in the Bob

Marshall Wilderness. He will return next summer to continue his

data collection.

Sami people, whose traditional livelihood was primarily

raising reindeer, practiced bark peeling on Scots pine, which

resembles ponderosa pine in the Northern Rockies. Samis peeled

the outer bark during spring when removal was easy. Sheets of

inner bark, or cambium, were then prepared as a staple food

resource. Sami ate bark fresh, dried or roasted, obtaining carbohydrates, Vitamin C and fiber, helping to balance a diet high in

protein and fat. One unique result of eating inner bark was

protection against scurvy (Vitamin C deficiency). In contrast,

coastal Scandinavians who ate no bark suffered serious scurvyrelated illnesses. Bark peeling was also imbued with much

religious significance. Linguists have traced inner bark use, and its

associated culture, via Germanic and Baltic loan words, which

Lapplanders and Native Americans

Intriguing Contributors to Forest Biodiversity

came into the Sami-Finnic protolanguage before the second

millennium B.C. Sami bark peeling ceased when land use

regulation, modern agriculture, and large-scale timber cutting

operations became dominant in the late 1800s.

 Östlund’s Bob Marshall study aims to interpret Native

American use of ponderosa pine forests by examining Indian

peeled and fire scarred trees. Cultural, ecological, and historical

records will be used to corroborate findings. Östlund hypothesizes

Native Americans used pine inner bark as a diet staple, similar to

Samis. The pattern of scarred trees seems related to frequently

used campsites, and Native Americans appear to have promoted

the ponderosa forest by active burning.

 Östlund termed his work “the archeology of living trees. It’s

rather important that we study this now when we still have the

trees because each decade we lose some of this information. We

lost trees like this in the Bitterroot fires this year.” By understanding how native peoples used and shaped past forest ecosystems

before the evidence disappears, we gain valuable information

about the historic components and processes necessary for future

ecosystem management decisions. Potential applications of

Östlund’s research include using fire to maintain historic ecosystem processes, protecting forests’ cultural history through locating

and preserving scarred trees, and establishing a guide for locating

and interpreting these trees.

Scots pine in northern Sweden, bark peeled in

the early 19th century by Sami people. Photo by

Lars Östlund. Lars Östlund with ponderosa pine in Montana’s

Bob Marshall wilderness, bark peeled in the late

19th century by Native Americans. Photo by Rikard

Andersson.

Lars Östlund (right) inspecting Indian peeled

ponderosa pine at Fales Flat, Bitterroot National

Forest. Photo by Steve Arno.
10

Tending the Garden at Tenderfoot Creek Experimental Forest

Fig. 1. Stream monitoring flume.

Fig. 2. Scientists taking snow measurements.

Fig. 3. Harvest treatments at Tenderfoot Creek

Experimental Forest.

Photos by Ward McCaughey.

“We share what our members know about Ecosystem Management

(EM) and how they do it,” says Carolyn Durgin, Program Coordinator for

the Montana Ecosystem Management Learning Center Program. The

Program is a partnership among the Forest Service, University of

Montana, Montana State University Extension Forestry, Swan Ecosystem

Center, Glacier Institute, Boone and Crockett Club, and Montana

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. Durgin continues,

“We define EM as a concept and process for satisfying human concerns

for the environment, economic well-being, and social harmony. However,

the definition evolves as we learn, so no one can be an expert in EM.”

Stressing cooperation, networking and ongoing learning, the

Learning Center works with teachers, students, researchers, land

managers, and public groups. Activities include classroom instruction,

workshops, field trips, curriculum development, and teacher training at

eleven learning sites that provide demonstrations in an accessible field

setting.

Education requires communication. Communication in Learning

Center programs includes a variety of traditional methods, but Durgin

believes hands-on field trips are ideal. “Providing information isn’t

enough; there must be something in a person’s experience that gives them

ownership and motivation to act.”

Since learning is a highly complex process, Learning Center

programs address a variety of “learning styles,” namely, verbal/linguistic,

logical/mathematical, kinesthetic, musical, visual, intrapersonal, and

interpersonal. Also, different teaching methods produce different rates of

information retention. For example, average retention rates vary from 5

percent for lecture and 10 percent for reading to 75 percent for practiceby-doing, and 90 percent for teaching others (The Learning Pyramid,

National Training Lab, Bethel, Maine). “Learning styles also affect what

we want to learn.” Some ask, “ Why does this work?” Some focus on

what the facts are. Others inquire how something works. Finally,

some ask “what if?” Durgin notes, “It’s basically putting variety into

how you teach so that different types of learners pick up the main

points.” Combining classroom instruction with interactive field

demonstrations appears to maximize the success of conservation

education for a variety of groups and individuals.

Learning Center partners are learning together as they share how

various EM concepts and treatments attempt to address the needs of

all ecosystem components. For more information on the Learning

Center Program contact Durgin at (406) 243-6655 or

chd@forestry.umt.edu.

The Learning Center

 A New Direction in Conservation Education

Students learn about wildlife forage at Pattee Canyon/Mount

Sentinel Learning Site. Photo by Carolyn Durgin.

Ward McCaughey

RMRS, Vegetation Research

The Tenderfoot Research Project,

conceptualized in the late 1980s, was

formally developed and initiated in the early

1990s. This research was designed to

evaluate alternative harvesting methods in

lodgepole pine, integrating fire with

silviculture, and to develop demonstration

areas for managers, researchers, and the

public. Research will evaluate the effects of

innovative harvesting methods on resources

such as water quality and quantity, wildlife,

forest fuels, and vegetation. Lodgepole pine

forests at Tenderfoot are similar to those on

the Bitterroot Front, both in composition

and fire suppression history. Results from

the Tenderfoot Research Project will provide

new alternatives for managing lodgepole

pine to improve forest health and reduce

fuels.

Past research studies and monitoring

efforts at Tenderfoot provide a variety of

baseline information for evaluating effects

of research treatments. Baseline data include

climate, hydrology, wildlife, fisheries, and

vegetation. Figure 1 depicts a stream

monitoring flume site on Tenderfoot Creek,

and Figure 2 shows scientists taking snow

depth and density measurements for winter

precipitation inputs.

The harvest methods being tested

include two shelterwood with reserve

treatments. One treatment leaves trees in an

even distribution while the second treatment leaves trees in untouched groups

ranging in size from one-half to over two

acres. Figure 3 illustrates evenly distributed

trees on the left and a dense group of leave

trees on the right. After eight years of

baseline data collection, research treatments were installed during the summer of

2000 with prescribed fire treatments

scheduled for 2001.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.
11

While many are content to visually enjoy the splendid summits

of Montana’s Bitterroot Range, others are born to climb them.

However, like all natural resources, these majestic peaks form the

context for user conflict, leading University of Montana graduate

student Jim Harding and forestry professor Bill Borrie into the

world of rock climbing issues research.

Rock climbing in the Bitterroots has steadily increased over

the past ten years. Harding and Borrie became involved after an

initial dialogue among local climbers, the Forest Service, and longtime residents raised three issues: erosion on approach trails,

cultural site management, and the method and frequency of

climbing bolt placement. In a BEMRP funded project, Harding

collected data using participant observation in which the researcher

actively joins the context of the community, participates in its

affairs, and understands it from within. During summer 1999,

Harding conducted informal conversations with climbers at two

primary climbing areas – Blodgett Canyon, known as the

“Yosemite of the Bitterroot,” and Kootenai Canyon (where the

climbing site is on private land adjacent to the Bitterroot National

Forest). These conversations have fostered continued collaboration

between the Forest Service and climbing community to resolve

issues. Every climber interviewed by Harding indicated an

awareness of each issue. His data also revealed other interesting

facts, for example, the differing desirability of each site and the

makeup of most of the climbers (predominantly University

students, in addition to locals). It will be used to develop climbing

guidelines and monitoring activities although its uses will be

limited to publicly owned sites.

During the 2000 climbing season, Harding began assessing the

effectiveness of three treatment messages, using printed signs

placed in the climbing areas. The first focused on normative

Climbing the Rocks

Resolving Management Issues

A perfect “rock climbing face” in Kootenai Canyon,

Bitterroot Mountains. Photo by Jim Harding.

Researcher Jim Harding (right) and Bill Goslin, Stevensville

Ranger District, assess impacts of rock climbing in Kootenai

Canyon. Photo by Jenny Johnson, Ravalli Republic.

pressure, exhorting climbers to stay in

good status with their fellows. The

second targeted ethics, encouraging

climbers to consider their behavior in

the context of their personal environmental ethic. The third provided

information on recreation impacts.

A control message supplied general

information about the climbing site.

Harding evaluated the effectiveness of

the messages using a questionnaire

about climbers’ behavior. According to

Harding, climbers seemed interested and

willing to participate in the survey, most

hoping to continue long-term dialogue

with the Forest Service and researchers

to maintain and improve climbing

opportunities.

Harding thinks the circular nature of his data collection process (which moved from a collaborative dialogue, to

qualitative fieldwork, to quantitative assessment of treatment

effectiveness, and back to collaborative dialogue) is a salient

feature of this project. “It’s iterative, kind of the snake eating its

own tail, perpetually so.” In summary he noted: “It became clear

that while there may be people unhappy with certain things and

there may be some resource problems, the Bitterroot Valley doesn’t

have near the problems of climbing areas elsewhere. Most of the

people I talked to have climbed [elsewhere] and talk about how

terrible things have gotten there, but we’re not nearly in the dire

straits that some other areas are.”
12

Forest plans developed in the 1980s for the Bitterroot and other

National Forests are scheduled for updating in the next few years. The

original analysis used FORPLAN, a nonspatial planning model. Acres

allocated to each treatment type were computed into the future, by

decade, along with a prediction of the resulting outputs and effects.

FORPLAN did not specify locations for these treatments. Rather, it

identified only that they occur within specific categories of ground,

which may be present at various locations in the Forest.

The treatment schedules in those nonspatial plans seemed feasible

at the time. However, as they were implemented on the ground, a whole new set of

considerations surfaced, many of which were

spatial in nature. It became difficult, if not

impossible, to treat the number of scheduled

acres and still satisfy the plan’s standards and

guidelines, which specify how effects are to be

distributed across the landscape. For example,

adequate wildlife habitat may be required for

various species within certain third order

drainages, or sediment and water yield

guidelines applied to individual watersheds.

The question becomes how to handle

spatial issues in the next round of forest

planning. An immediate reaction might be to

The Acceptability Question: An Enigma of Implementing

Nonspatial Strategic Forest Plans in Real Time and Space

Greg Jones, Program Leader

RMRS, BEMRP conduct spatial analysis in the next plans.

Considering the sheer magnitude of acres involved, data

required, and time needed to assemble and analyze data, this option is

probably cost and time prohibitive.

Another idea is building spatial models for representative areas on

a Forest to provide feedback into the nonspatial forest planning

process. These would test whether a nonspatial plan could be implemented spatially on representative areas and accomplish the planned

objectives. This would be realized by applying models to develop

spatial treatment schedules, using stated objectives, analyses of the

location and likelihood of various processes and disturbances (fire,

insects, and diseases), and computing the

combined effects of this on resource values. If

analysis indicates forest plan objectives

cannot be accomplished on those representative areas, the opportunity exists to re-tune the

nonspatial plan and try again.

Carrying this idea a step farther, it may

be possible to project spatial analysis results

from these representative areas to “like” areas

on a Forest, thereby estimating the feasibility

of possible treatments on those areas too.

These ideas are currently being tested in a

study funded by BEMRP, using the spatial

models MAGIS and SIMPPLLE.

Description of spatial models SIMPPLE and MAGIS.

Robert Pfister

University of Montana, School of Forestry

Forested landscapes display a variety of vegetation patterns over

time and space. These patterns reflect: 1) a wide mixture of physical

environments exhibiting variation in elevation, aspect and soils, 2) the

continual process of vegetation change over time, and 3) the interaction of natural and human disturbances – fire, insects, disease, wind,

and management practices. Patches of uniform vegetation can be

identified and mapped as stands. Similar patches can be put in groups

called stand types. Landscapes can then be described as a collection

of different stand types.

Classification is a formal tool used to encapsulate nature’s

infinite variety in categories about which we can then make generalizations to communicate knowledge. Although different vegetation

classification systems have been developed for specified purposes, we

need standardized, all-purpose classifications to help us study and

manage landscapes at different scales. “Ecosystem management” and

“sustainable forestry” require standardized classifications to provide

the building blocks and tools to study and plan landscapes over long

time periods. The Ecosystem Diversity Framework (EDF) attempts to

bring together different classification approaches, standardize their

use, and enable improved landscape analysis and communication.

The current version of EDF used in western Montana has five

unique components or variables. The first is a site classification

system based on natural vegetation called “habitat types.” These are

aggregated into general “habitat type groups” to reflect major

differences in physical environments (climate, microclimate,

topography, elevation, and soils). The other four components are

based on attributes of current vegetation: size, composition, density,

and vertical structure. Size classes range from seedlings and saplings

to small, large, and very large dominant trees. Composition is based

on the major dominant species such as ponderosa pine and lodgepole

pine. Density classes are based on percent canopy cover and range

Ecosystem Diversity Framework components.

Ecosystem Diversity Framework

from very open to very dense stands (closed canopy). Vertical

structure is based on the positions of tree crowns, ranging from

single-story to multiple-story appearances. A sixth possible component is “process-based structure types,” an alternative classification

system. We need further research to integrate this classification

approach with the other five components.

Each component can be used independently as a simple classification or combined into different matrices to address specific

questions. These classifications can be used to label stands for

inventory, for map displays with GIS (Geographic Information

Systems), and for inputs and outputs to landscape models like

SIMPPLLE or MAGIS. The EDF, in summary, seeks to develop a

standardized ecological classification system for inventorying,

studying, analyzing, and modeling landscapes and how they change

through various disturbances and processes over time.
13

Applying research to aid forest management is a familiar

role for Research Scientist and Professor, Bob Pfister. Bob

comes by his holistic approach to forestry honestly. He was

reared on his family’s diversified farm and woodlot in “the little

Switzerland of Iowa,” near Decorah. “That was my original

exposure to forestry and conservation,” remarked Bob.

Bob earned a Bachelors Degree in Forest Management at

Iowa State University. Following graduation, he migrated to the

Pacific Northwest, spent a summer as a lookout near Mount

Rainer, and then a summer working for the State of Oregon.

After receiving his masters degree in silviculture at Oregon State

University, Bob launched a career that took him to the heart of

forest management and a pioneering role in ecosystem management (EM) research.

Beginning in 1961, Bob accepted a position in applied

silviculture research and forest management at the Intermountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station in Moscow, Idaho. Here,

he managed the Deception Creek and Priest River Experimental

Forests and received his PhD in botany from Washington State

University.

Bob Pfister “Applied research is the fun stuff!”

In 1967, Bob became the Silviculture Unit Project Leader at

Missoula’s Forestry Sciences Laboratory. By 1970, he was

Project Leader of the Forest Ecosystem Research Work Unit,

heavily involved in EM research when it was an obscure

specialty. During the 1970s, Bob’s team developed a forest

habitat type classification system for most of the Intermountain

Station area. This system and an evolving Ecosystem Diversity

Framework (see article on page 8), provide two rigorous

classification systems underlying EM in the Northern Rockies.

In 1981, Bob left the Forest Service to become Director of

the Mission Oriented Research Program at the University of

Montana’s School of Forestry. Here, he augmented research

duties with teaching, leading numerous continuing education

courses, and developing cooperative research programs. No

stranger to academia, he had been teaching weekend classes at

the University since 1971. In 1985, Bob added the position of

Associate Director of the Montana Forest and Conservation

Experiment Station to his duties.

Among the landmarks in his career, Bob lists Society of

American Forester participation, membership in the

ECOCLASS Task Force, publication of Forest Habitat Types of

Montana in 1977, leadership of the Inland Northwest Growth

and Yield Cooperative, initiation of the Montana Riparian

Association, and active involvement in New Perspectives

Forestry and EM in the 1990s. Another highlight came in 1993

when former BEMRP Program Leader Clint Carlson asked him

to collaborate with the Program as a Forestry School representative, thus closing a loop in his career circle.

“This gave me a way to reunite with the Forest Service

family and be part of it. I’m thankful for a career that has

provided me the opportunity to work half of my career with the

Forest Service and half of my career with the University,

integrating applied research with forest management in both

contexts.”

Bob is currently going through another career metamorphosis. He is retiring “at the end of the millennium.” In 2001, Bob

will rejoin the Forestry School under a one-third time postretirement contract where he will pursue his research priorities

and remain active in the Mission Oriented Research Program,

the EM Learning Center Program, and BEMRP, leaving more

time for family and personal interests.

 Bob’s family includes his wife Marietta (a former school

music teacher), three grown sons, their wives, and six grandchildren. Outside of work, he and Marietta enjoy traveling, and Bob

sings with his church choir and the Rocky Mountainaires, a

barbershop chorus. He also enjoys golf, sports, outdoor activities, and reading in his spare time.

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

Bob Pfister lecturing at the Regional Training Academy in

Missoula, Montana. Photo by Janie Canton-Thompson.
14

BOOK

CORNER

A Review of

Some Study Guides on

Fire in the Forest

“What Do You Mean By That?”

Stephen F. Arno

RMRS, Retired

The record-setting 2000 fire season emphasized that western

Montana residents are living in fire-dependent ecosystems. There

are reasons why everyone interested in forests should study fire.

The emergence of tens of thousands of new homes in and near our

wildland forests since 1970 makes it difficult to manage fire and

fuels in adjacent public lands. Many resources allocated to fire

suppression in 2000 were diverted to protecting vulnerable forest

homes. Personal responsibility is an admired and expected trait of

residents of the rural West. Since many of us have chosen to live

in or near forests, we share the responsibility for learning about

fire so we can appropriately manage our own property and help

with recommendations for public forests. We can also provide

knowledge-based input to county commissioners as they consider

improving fire-safe standards for new and existing forest homes.

The following are some educational resources on the

ecological role of fire, fire behavior, and ways to manage fire and

fuels:

Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests by James K.

Agee, 1993. Island Press. 493 p. $38 paperback (phone orders:

1-800-828-1302).

Although intended as a college text and reference book, I

recommend it for anyone with a moderate knowledge of and deep

interest in wildland forests. While focusing on forest types found

in Washington, Oregon, and northern California, it also covers

most Northern Rockies types. Chapter 1 explains natural fire

regimes, and how fire has shaped forests since the last ice age.

Subsequent chapters describe how and why fires burn; human

relationships and the use of forest burning from ancient times to

the present; methods for determining fire history; fire effects on

vegetation, soils, water, and air; and approaches for rehabilitating

burned areas. Six chapters describe the role of fire in major

regional forest types, half of which make up most Northern Rocky

Mountain Forests. General audiences should note that these types

are based on potential climax tree species, not the most common

tree. The last chapter deals with fire management issues, including

forest health in the inland mountains and fire’s relationship to

global climate change.

Dr. Agee, a recognized authority on fire ecology, is good at

delivering a synopsis of voluminous scientific knowledge. The

book has a simple, effective style of referencing other literature; it

has useful illustrations, an index, and a small glossary of technical

terms.

Another book provides an excellent guide to forest fires for

general audiences, but unfortunately is no longer in print. Nevertheless, it should be available in some libraries and might be found

through book search services. Forest Fires by Margaret Fuller,

1991. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 238 p. paperback. The

book is a layperson’s guide to wildland fire ecology, behavior,

management, firefighting, and prevention. Its author focuses on

forests of central Idaho, which are comparable in many ways to

those of western Montana.

The Bitterroot Ecosystem Management Research Project:

What We have Learned is a valuable resource. A synopsis of

findings from five years of studies, it consists of more than 50

short articles on subjects like comparing historic and modern

forests on the Bitterroot Front, ecosystem-based management in

the ponderosa pine zone, silvicultural treatments, prescribed fire

applications, soils and nutrient considerations, wildlife habitat

considerations, restoration of native plant communities infested by

invasive weeds, and ecosystem-based management in several forest

zones. See this Eco-Report, page 6, to find out how to receive a

free copy.

Last year we previewed a glossary of unfamiliar terms planned for BEMRP’s web site, which is still under

construction. This year we offer you additional and perhaps unfamiliar terms used by fire scientists (definitions

adapted from Temperate Forest Foundation Fire Ecology Glossary at web site http://forestinfo.org/fire.htm).

Again, we invite you to suggest new terms for inclusion in our developing glossary.

Crown fire - A fire burning into the crowns of vegetation, generally

associated with an intense understory fire.

Fire regime - The combination of fire frequency, extent, predictability, intensity, and seasonality in an ecosystem.

Lethal underburn - A fire that, although it consumes only surface

and understory fuels, kills the overstory through crown scorch,

cambium damage, or both.

Prescribed fire - A fire ignited under predetermined, known conditions of fuel, weather, and topography to achieve specific management

objectives.

Prescribed natural fire - A fire ignited by natural processes (usually

lightning) which is allowed to burn within specified, predetermined

parameters of fuels, weather, and topography to achieve specific

objectives.

Surface Fire - A fire burning in ground surface fuels without

significant involvement of the understory or overstory, with flame

lengths usually below 1 meter.

Understory - The layer formed by the crowns of smaller vegetation

in a forest.

Understory fire - A fire burning in a layer formed by the crowns of

smaller vegetation in a forest, which is typically more intense than a

surface fire and has flame lengths of 1 to 3 meters.

Wildfire - A fire of either natural or human ignition, not meeting

land management objectives, and requiring suppression.
15

Improving the Link between Research and Management

Larry Swanson

University of Montana, O’Connor

Center for the Rocky Mountain West

Preparing area economic profiles, in other words, collection and

analysis of data characterizing the structure, makeup and important

changes of local economies, has traditionally been an important part of

Forest Service planning. However, over time these profiles become

outdated.

Economist Larry Swanson developed a framework for assessing

and profiling such economies. In a BEMRP-funded study, Swanson has

helped design a new framework for assessing and profiling economies

of areas near National Forests, such as the Bitterroot Valley. Swanson is

Associate Director of the O’Conner Center for the Rocky Mountain

West and head of its Regional Economy program. Recently, he designed

Regional Economies Assessment Database (READ), a web-based

evaluation system for the comprehensive, systematic assessment of

regional economies.

In READ, economic data are organized at different regional levels

since changing economic patterns can be best viewed and interpreted at

the sub-state level. In the BEMRP study, economic data are also being

organized for areas adjacent to National Forest lands. In southwestern

Montana, the Bitterroot Valley economy is being evaluated relative to

economic changes in non-metro areas near intermediate population

centers and near National Forests. Knowing how the Bitterroot economy

(essentially Ravalli County, Montana) compares to similarly positioned

western U.S. areas will provide context for analyzing and interpreting

changes.

During the 1980s, Ravalli County experienced a net population

gain of 1,530 people. Then, in the 1990s, the population, spurred

primarily by in-migration, increased by 43 percent – from around

25,000 in 1990 to 35,800 in 1999 – making it one of the 50 fastest

growing counties in the U.S. While many locals wondered what caused

this dramatic shift, a similar pattern occurred in other non-metro areas

near National Forests.

 In this study, Swanson isolated counties sharing these features: 1)

near National Forests, 2) no area larger than 50,000 people, 3) near

intermediate-size population centers (30,000 to 160,000 people), and 4)

wood products industry dependent in 1977 (wood products manufacturing accounted for over 10 percent of area labor income). There are 23

such counties in the West, including Ravalli, that meet these standards.

During the 1980s, these combined counties lost over 4,000 people

through out-migration, but added more than 51,000 people during the

1990s. Their combined dependence on wood products manufacturing

declined from 27 to 16 percent from 1977 to 1992. During this time,

Ravalli County’s dependency on wood products manufacturing fell from

11.3 percent to 9.6 percent, a decline which might have been greater had

it not been for expansion of log home manufacturing.

Profiling Economies Near Forest Service Lands

Personal income compositions are also shifting dramatically. In

1977, 67 percent of income received by residents of the 23 counties was

labor earnings. By 1997, this share had fallen to 52 percent. In Ravalli

County, it declined from 58 to 51 percent. Almost half now comes from

transfer payments, including social security and investment.

These are but a few of the interesting facts comprising the economic

profile being prepared for this project. This, together with an assessment

of the Bitterroot Valley economy and instructions for using READ in the

ongoing assessment of area economies, will be included in the final

report.

past year’s fires provide an excellent example of the urgent information needs of managers. For instance, what will happen if we try to

restore burned areas? How will we prevent weeds from infiltrating the

Wilderness? What will the effects of fires be on ecosystems that

burned, and are management actions needed to mitigate these?

Relevant research is often buried within scientific journals stored in

university libraries, making it difficult for those who need information

to find it. Technology transfer and research application specialists are

scattered throughout the Forest Service to cross these cultural

boundaries and focus on making research results more accessible to

managers. They do this through a variety of tools, including nontechnical research summaries, presentations, workshops, and the

Internet. Perhaps the most effective method is one-on-one communication and working directly with management teams. The agency is

investigating the potential roles additional “boundary spanners” could

play in improving communication between researchers and managers.

Vita Wright

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Institute

 BEMRP has fostered collaboration between scientists and managers

to conduct a variety of research

projects. Whether scientists and

managers collaborate, or scientists

conduct research independently, there must

be a process for transferring research results to managers and for

incorporating them into manage-ment decisions. Scientists and

managers work in vastly different cultures with different pressures and

reward systems. Consequently, communicating results in a timely,

effective manner can be challenging. The questions posed during this

READ Map of Western United States.
16

ECO-Report

Bitterroot Ecosystem Management

Research Project

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

P.O. Box 8089

Missoula, MT 59807

BEMRP Fire Tour 2000 lunch break.

Photo by Kurt Krueger.

On October 16, 2000, the Bitterroot National Forest and

BEMRP sponsored a tour of last summer’s burned area. Retired

Bitterroot Forest Fire Management Officers Bob McKee and

Brooke Thompson led the all-day event attended by BEMRP and

other RMRS researchers.

Starting at Hamilton, participants drove through the Blodgett

Fire area, a person-caused fire of about 12,000 acres. Here they

viewed results of a stand replacement crown fire and lethal

underburn where one home was lost. They also saw a recently

implemented Burned Area Emergency Rehab (BAER) Project,

where volunteers from the local community had spread straw to

intercept precipitation, slow overland water flow, and protect

emerging plants. Interestingly, new growth was already evident on

willow and other shrubs.

The group then drove south on U.S. Highway 93 through

portions of the Skalkaho and Valley Complexes and witnessed

parts of more than 300,000 acres of burned federal, state, and

private lands. A side trip included Robbins Gulch with lunch at the

head of Moonshine Gulch. There, the group discussed fire

implications and research possibilities. Heading out Rye Creek,

they drove south through East Fork Canyon where fire burned on

both sides of Highway 93. While several houses were lost here,

many remained unscathed, in large part due to suppression efforts

by fire fighters.

The next part of the tour included a 15-mile loop through the

Sula Complex, driving by destroyed homes in the Laird Creek

area. Several BAER projects were also evident, including placement of straw “waddles” and contour felling for erosion control.

BEMRP Sponsors Bitterroot Fire Tour

As the tour continued over Bear Creek saddle, the burn became

more of a mosaic of varying severity instead of the stand replacing burns seen elsewhere.

The tour proceeded south to Ross’ Hole where the Sula

Complex fire camp was burned over on August 6, 2000. The final

stop was at the site of a log house featured in paired photos

published in an earlier fire exclusion study

(Gruell, 1983). In the 1895 photo, the house was

flanked by a grassy hillside but by 1980 the

hillside was covered with trees, a result of fire

exclusion. Both the trees and house site

burned in 2000.

All members of the group were

both humbled and invigorated by the

results of a natural disturbance

not seen in the Bitterroot for

at least 300 years. The

fieldtrip became the first in a

subsequent series of Bitterroot Forest sponsored trips.

Luring participants from as

far away as Switzerland, the

trips continued twice weekly

until mid-November. In

Spring 2001, the Bitterroot

Forest hopes to reinitiate

these tours, which are open

to the public.