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

Inside

Great Issues, Great Diversions

• Ecosystem Management’s

Future ........................................ (p. 3)

• Book Corner ............................. (p. 8)

• Research Highlights ................. (p. 9)

• Getting the Word Out ............ (p. 15)

• The “Spotlight” ...................... (p. 17)

Janie Canton-Thompson, Technology Transfer Specialist and

ECO-Report Editor, RMRS, Economic Aspects of Forest

Management on Public Lands, Missoula, MT

“There are great issues and great

diversions. Great issues are matters that cry

out for public attention and resolution. Great

diversions are relatively unimportant matters

that take up a lot of our time and effort.” Thus

stated Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth in

a speech given in 2003.1 The 1897 Organic

Act established forest reserves “to improve

and protect the forest...for the purpose of

securing favorable conditions of water flows,

and to furnish a continuous supply of

timber.”2 This basic Forest Service mission

has not changed, but what have changed are

the agency’s emphases in implementing its

mission, driven by political and socioeconomic forces.

Prosperity following World War II fueled

timber demand, but also increased interest in

outdoor recreation, wildlife, and wilderness.

Although the agency attempted to mediate

these conflicting pressures, it could not offer

more timber while also removing more land from timber

harvest. Something had to give; ultimately, timber did. By

2003, timber harvest dropped to about 13 percent of its mid1980s level.3 Although still legitimate concerns today, timber

harvest, road building, threatened and endangered species, and

livestock grazing constitute four “great diversions,” distracting

attention from four “great issues.” In his speeches, Chief

Bosworth explains that now our greatest issues are fuels and

fire, unmanaged recreation, invasive species, and loss of open

space (fragmentation)—what he calls “The Four Threats.”

The fire and fuels threat results from forests that are

overgrown, and means our forests are in need of restoration.

The reason lies in a complex set of interactions. During most of

the 20th century Americans pressured the agency to suppress

fires. Fire protection, recreation demand, and decades of wet

weather produced dense, fuel-loaded forests. In more recent

years, prolonged drought entered the equation, increasing

forest flammability. Together, these factors have produced

uncharacteristically fire-prone forests.

 Researchers are gaining new

knowledge about natural processes,

treatment effects and effectiveness, and

social implications of management options,

as well as developing analysis and decisionsupport tools for use in treating fire and

fuels. Bitterroot Ecosystem Management

Research Project (BEMRP) researchers

have been investigating effects of fire and

fuels management treatments on wildlife

and aquatic habitat, invasive species, and

other resources such as soils and understory

plants. Applied research is more critical

now than ever before.

 Loss of open space is an equally

complex threat. Every day, the United States

loses 4,000 acres of open space to

development activities—about 3 acres per

minute.4 Much of this is ranchland, sold to

developers for skyrocketing amenity values

to escape debt, drought, and environmental

lawsuits. Likewise, working private forests get subdivided,

making them less profitable and harder to manage sustainably.

Researchers are learning about impacts of lost open space.

For example, breaking large “working” forests into smaller

forests makes them more difficult to manage sustainably.

Small, wildland/urban interface woodlots often are vulnerable

to fire.5 Forest interior and range habitat shrink. Biodiversity

diminishes. Traditionally, buffers offered by ranches and farms

protected habitat quality on national forest lands. Today, a

growing and

shifting population,

escalating outdoor

recreation, and a

global economy are

driving urbanization

and housing

(continued on page 2)

Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth.

Photo courtesy of the Washington Office.
2

Great Issues . . . (continued from page 1)

Values, threats, and actions. Forest Service Research and Development graphic.

developments nearer to wildland/urban interfaces. Ecological

processes and economic enterprises dependent on continuous

forest cover suffer accordingly. Research helps us understand,

predict, and manage urbanization and land fragmentation.

A third great threat is the increase of invasive species.

Initially, most invasive species came as food and fiber imports,

or ornamental plants. Invasives include non-native plants, fish,

insects, diseases, and pathogens. Rapid encroachment of

invasive weeds greatly reduces livestock carrying capacity and

wildlife habitat value. Several major tree species, including

American elm, have suffered severe impacts from invasives.

West Nile virus, currently threatening horses, is a high profile

invader.

Wide ranging studies to determine the magnitude of the

problem, and improve intervention, are ongoing. BEMRP

researchers have been examining invasive species biology,

environmentally safe control options, and invasives’ impact on

native species. Researchers have learned that invasive nonnative species often reduce native species biodiversity and

change natural disturbance regimes. Postfire treatments, other

fuels management activities, and grazing can unintentionally

encourage non-native plant species to spread. Insects

introduced to control spotted knapweed have become food

sources for deer mice, increasing the threat of Sin Nombre

Hantavirus. To be effective, we need prevention measures that

are large scale and, like the invaders, cross traditional

jurisdictional boundaries.

Unmanaged recreation is the fourth threat. Recreation

demand is growing rapidly, with wildlife viewing and scenery

among the top attractions. Millions of people recreating in

national forests impact forest ecosystems and recreation

quality. Problems include: crowds, noise, degraded trails,

eroded river banks, inappropriate campsites, stripped

vegetation, damaged meadows, and disrupted wildlife.

Particularly important is the seven-fold increase in off-highway

vehicle (OHV) use in less than 30 years.6 Unmanaged OHV

use has the potential to do extensive damage. In the Northern

Region, Forest Service managers have found that even minimal

OHV cross-country travel can cause considerable damage,

requiring travel management plans that limit OHV use to

designated areas.

Scientific knowledge is prerequisite to successful

recreation management. Researchers are learning many things

about recreation-induced resource impacts, recreation supply

and demand, and quality of recreation experience. For example,

OHV noise within about 110 yards negatively affects breeding

birds, and noise made by people on the ground disturbs nesting

birds more than aircraft noise does.7 Researchers have also

discovered people care about, and return repeatedly to, specific

places, meaning alternative recreational areas may not be

acceptable to some users. Future research will examine wildlife

and recreation interaction, and study behavioral incentives that

provide recreation experiences to visitors while preventing

undue resource damage. Options for accommodating people’s

“attachment to place” and managing recreation carrying

capacities are under development.

Finally, one top priority is preserving and maintaining

national forest and grassland health. Critical to this effort is

amelioration of the Four Threats. The Forest Service intends to

protect and enhance social, economic, and ecological benefits

offered by healthy forests. This requires continuous up-to-date

knowledge to combat the Four Threats. Research on assessment

and detection, prevention and mitigation, control and

management, and rehabilitation and restoration activities helps

preserve values offered by healthy national forests—clean air

and water; safe habitat for plants, fish, and wildlife; and

socioeconomic vitality of our population.8 Do not be

preoccupied with the issues of yesterday. While some past

issues may still be relevant, we must not allow them to divert us

from responding to today’s emerging problems.

 1Bosworth, Dale. 2003. Managing the National Forest System: Great

Issues and Great Diversions. Speech to the Commonwealth Club. San

Francisco, CA. April 22. 4 p.

 2Bosworth, Dale. 2003. Changing the Debate on Managing National

Forests and Grasslands. Speech to the Society of Environmental

Journalists, Annual Conference. New Orleans, LA. September 12. 5 p.

 3Ibid.

 4Bosworth, Dale. 2003. We Need a National Debate. Speech to Izaak

Walton League, 81st Annual Convention. Pierre, SD. July 17. 7 p.

 5Bosworth, Dale. 2003. State of the Forest Service, 2003. Speech to

National Leadership Team Meeting. Tucson, AZ. February 2003. 17 p.

 6 Ibid.

 7USDA Forest Service, Research and Development. [n.d.] Briefing

Paper: Science-Based Solutions for the Four Threats to the Health of the

Nation’s Forest and Grasslands. Executive Summary. 16 p.

 8Ibid.
3

Ecosystem Management’s Future

Making a Difference with Ecosystem Management Projects

 (Why They’re Valuable!)

Jim Saveland, Assistant Director for Research,

RMRS, Fort Collins, CO

Making a difference is an extremely important topic, and I

am grateful for the opportunity to write about it. One of the

great things about working for the Forest Service is that a lot of

people working for the agency chose their profession because

of a desire to make a difference. There’s often a lot of talk

about reward systems, but extensive research on motivation

shows that while rewards are effective in gaining compliance in

the short-run, they have a negative impact on commitment and

are thus counter productive in the long-run.1 There is no

greater motivator than people’s own intrinsic motivation to

make a difference in something they care about. I am reminded

of a quote in what I consider one of the greatest management

science books ever written, The Human Side of Enterprise.

An equally important reason for management’s failure

to make effective use of current social science knowledge has to do with a misconception concerning the

nature of control in the field of human behavior. In

engineering, control consists in adjustment to natural

law. It does not mean making nature do our bidding. We

do not, for example, dig channels in the expectation that

water will flow uphill; we do not use kerosene to put

out a fire. In designing an internal combustion engine

we recognize and adjust to the fact that gases expand

when heated; we do not attempt to make them behave

otherwise. With respect to physical phenomena, control

involves the selection of means which are appropriate to

the nature of the phenomena with which we are

concerned. In the human field the situation is the same,

but we often dig channels to make water flow uphill.2

The greatest value of BEMRP is that it brings agency scientists, land

managers, university researchers, and community members together

to make a difference on the land and in people’s hearts. Photo by

Brooke Thompson.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can

change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” —

Margaret Mead. Photo by Janie Canton-Thompson.

We often try to make water flow uphill in the management

arena by developing clever reward systems, or worse yet,

applying sticks as well as offering carrots. The greater

challenge is to figure out how to nurture and cultivate an

environment where people’s own intrinsic motivation to make a

difference flourishes. When people are working together to

make a difference in what they care about, great things happen.

Which brings me to the title of this short essay. I could

recite a laundry list of all the great research that the Ecosystem

Management projects have funded and all the new knowledge

we’ve learned, and that would indeed be a substantial and

impressive list. (See “BEMRP Turns 10” article for a taste of

these accomplishments, p. 4.) But for me, the greatest value the

Ecosystem Management projects provide is an opportunity for

Forest Service (and other agency) researchers and land

managers to work together with university researchers and the

people in local communities to make a difference on the land

and in people’s hearts. When science and management come

together in the local community on collaborative projects to

make a difference on the land, great things happen. As

Margaret Mead said, “Never doubt that a small group of

thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it

is the only thing that ever has.”

 1Kohn, Alfie. 1999. Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold

Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes. New York: Houghton

Mifflin Co.

 2McGregor, Douglas. 1985. The Human Side of Enterprise—25th

Anniversary Printing. New York: McGraw Hill. p. 8-9.
4

BEMRP Turns 10

Ecosystem Management’s Future

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

Sharon Ritter, Research/

Management Coordinator,

Bitterroot National Forest

and BEMRP, Hamilton, MT

Ten years ago, the Forest

Service decided to establish

several Ecosystem

Management Units. A group

of researchers and forest

managers, already working on

forest restoration in the Lick

Creek area, proposed forming

the Bitterroot Ecosystem

Management Research

Project. It was a partnership

from the start, and that

partnership kept it going and

grounded in real-life

management issues. Recently,

it also helped BEMRP gain

approval to continue for the next 5 years.

In a recent review of the five Ecosystem Management

Units within Rocky Mountain Research Station, BEMRP

scored especially high in relevance. BEMRP-sponsored

science is applied on-the-ground in the Bitterroot National

Forest and other western lands. Through this unique

partnership, researchers and managers share information and

ideas, and help plan research projects. This results in timely

use of research results and gives managers ownership in those

results. One Forest representative was even heard to refer to

“our” research. Now that’s ownership!

Here are some examples of how BEMRP research results

are having an immediate effect on the ground:

• Forests conduct thinning and prescribed burning

based on what we learned at Lick Creek

Demonstration/Research Forest.

• The Burnt Fork Ranch learned about restoration treatments at Sawmill Research Natural Area, and then

completed similar work on more than 8,000 acres.

• Forests use results from noxious weed treatment research occurring on the Lolo National Forest.

BEMRP has been productive, funding 106 studies in the

past decade. Some of the questions addressed include:

• What are the historical landscape patterns and fire

history within our forests and grasslands, and the

recent influences of harvesting and fire suppression?

• What are effective ecosystem restoration treatments

to restore our ecosystems to more historical

conditions, and what are their effects on various

natural resources?

• What factors affect

distribution and abundance

of wildlife species?

• How can we use models

to understand current and

future effects of treatments,

fire suppression, timber

harvest, and natural forest

succession?

• How can the Forest

Service increase public

participation and improve

communication among

managers, research

scientists, and the public?

 Long-term research is an

important aspect of BEMRP.

For example, BEMRP is still

studying the effects of

treatments done at Lick Creek

in the early 1990s. The Tenderfoot Research Project on the

Lewis and Clark National Forest is looking at immediate and

long-term effects of treatments in lodgepole pine forests. We’re

compiling a bibliography of research on the effects of thinning

and prescribed fire on resources in the Northern Rockies.

Except for the shining example of BEMRP, there are very few

long-term studies of treatment effects.

BEMRP also has been busy sharing the results of research

through field trips, seminars, ECO-Report, our website,

displays, demonstration sites, brochures, posters, more than

160 published papers, and participation in conferences and

workshops. Through these, researchers, managers, and the

public learn how to be better stewards of our environment.

Now that BEMRP has the go-ahead for another 5 years,

we’re excited about continuing and expanding upon our past

research. Soon, we will be setting up new research projects to

help us understand and manage western Montana ecosystems.

BEMRP-sponsored science is applied on-the-ground in the Bitterroot

National Forest and other western lands. Here, University of Montana

silviculture professor Carl Fiedler describes the results of his research

at Lick Creek. Photo by Brooke Thompson.
5

Ecosystem Management’s Future

A Vision for RMRS Ecosystem Management Projects

(continued on page 6)

Jim Saveland, Assistant Director for

Research, RMRS Management Team.

Photo courtesy of Jim Saveland.

Jim Saveland, Assistant Director for

Research, RMRS, Fort Collins, CO

In “Fire in the Forest,” a paper I wrote

for the 1995 National Silviculture Workshop

(www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/saveland/

fire_forest.pdf), I shared my vision for the

restoration of short-interval fire-adapted

ecosystems and talked about the importance

of developing a shared vision. Looking back

over that paper 9 years later, my thoughts

about the need to restore fire-adapted

ecosystems are very much the same.

Ecosystem management projects have an

important role to play in restoring fireadapted ecosystems. Rather than repeat

myself, I’d like to turn my attention to the

larger field we play on and the recent

emphasis on improving “science delivery

and application.”

Two reports recently crossed my desk.

The first one is the “American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Report XXIX Research and

Development [R&D] FY 2005.” It’s located on the web at http:/

/www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rd05main.htm. AAAS produces this

report each year. It provides a comprehensive overview of the

President’s proposed budget for research and development.

“The request for total federal R&D in FY 2005 is $132.0

billion, $5.5 billion or 4.3 percent more than FY 2004. The

entire increase would go to Department of Defense (DOD)

development of weapons systems and R&D in the new

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), leaving all other

federal R&D programs collectively with declining funding.”

The Department of Defense R&D budget would increase by

$4.0 billion to $69.9 billion. That increase is roughly the

equivalent of the entire Forest Service budget. The report goes

on to talk about the expected federal budget deficit this year

($521 billion) and the tremendous pressure on domestic

discretionary spending due to such things as $1.1 trillion in tax

cuts over the next decade, and the new Medicare prescription

drug benefit costing $539 billion over the next 10 years. The

report also looks beyond federal spending for R&D. In 2003,

the United States invested an estimated $284 billion in R&D,

which represents 2.61 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic

Product (GDP). The largest share of this money (63 percent)

came from industrial firms. The United States accounts for

about 37 percent of all world R&D. Finally, “Science and

technology are recognized as key drivers of economic growth,

as well as improved health and quality of life in the United

States and throughout the world. Economists estimate that up

to half of the U.S. economic growth over the past five decades

is due to advances in technology.”

The second report that crossed my desk is 3M’s 2003

Annual Report. It is also available on the web at http://

media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/NYS/MMM/reports/

2003ar.pdf. 3M is an $18 billion global

diversified technology company (creators of

scotch guard and post-it notes among many

other innovative consumer products). 3M

recognizes R&D as a major driver of its

growth, investing $1.102 billion (6 percent of

net sales) in research and development in

2003. 3M prides itself on a culture of

creativity and teamwork. It was interesting to

note that 3M has five integrated corporate

initiatives. The object of one of them, 3M

Acceleration, is “to improve what 3M does

best—innovation and new product

development. Our goal is to double the

number of qualified new 3M product ideas

and triple the value of products that win in

the marketplace.” 3M focuses on increasing

speed and efficiency in developing and

commercializing new products—bringing

innovative products and services to market

faster. “Throughout 3M, our employees are getting highpotential products to market faster using a single, companywide process and a common set of tools for new product

introductions.” 3M wants “to shorten the distance between

research and development and 3M’s customers.” Like 3M, the

federal government is increasingly interested in increasing its

speed and efficiency in developing innovative products and

services that are useful to land managers and the communities

they serve.

To be effective, research needs freedom to question the

status quo. We often assume that independence and separation

are required to guarantee our freedom to question. This has led

to a sacred cow in research: maintain independence. This is not

the only viable model. We tend to think and talk about research

and management by focusing on the gap and separation:

Another way of thinking and talking about the relationship of

research and management is:

▲

▲

Research

Management

Experiment

Learning

Innovation

Improvement

Adaptive Management

Action Research

Technology

Transfer

(Chasm)

▲

▲

Research Management
6

A Vision for RMRS . . . (continued from page 5)

Here research and management have several interests in

common, including conducting operational experiments,

learning from mistakes, spreading innovations quickly, and

continuously improving operations. The focus is on the

common ground between research and management.

This leads me to some thoughts about a vision for the

future of our larger playing field and the Ecosystem

Management Projects:

1. I hope that one day we as a society recognize that

the major driver of long-term sustainable economic

growth is research and development, not the shortterm “quick-fix” of tax cuts.

2. I hope that one day the world is a safe enough place

that we can take some of the money being spent on

weapons systems and invest in environmental

research and development such as the Ecosystem

Management projects. In the short-term, I hope we

don’t have to sacrifice non-defense R&D to pay for

weapons systems R&D.

3. I hope that one day we take a cue from 3M,

limiting the number of “corporate” initiatives and

integrating them.

4. I hope that one day our performance accountability

systems1 include an innovation and learning

perspective.2

5. I hope that one day we take the time to engage in

the process of benchmarking.3 4

6. I hope that our current conversations about the need

to increase the speed and efficiency of science

delivery and application are informed by the

science behind the diffusion of innovation.5 (See

Diffusion of Innovations article on p. 15.)

7. I hope we continue to improve our ability to

conduct “adaptive management” and “action

research.”

Our Ecosystem Management projects are pioneers, blazing

this path. Our Ecosystem Management projects are one

effective way of “shortening the distance between research and

development and our stakeholders.”

 1Performance accountability systems are systems designed to enable

organizations to document their performance, including what activities

they’ve completed, how much the activities have cost, and what they’ve

accomplished.

 2Kaplan, Robert S.; Norton, David P. 1992. The Balanced Scorecard—

Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business

Review. January-February: 71-79.

 3Benchmarking is the concept of measuring

oneself (or organization) against “the best of the

best.”

 4Camp, Robert C. 1989.

Benchmarking: The Search for Industry

Best Practices That Lead to Superior

Performance. Milwaukee: ASQC Quality

Press.

 5Rogers, Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of

Innovations, Fifth Edition. New York: Free

Press.

Have you ever spent time pondering the meanings of terms used in ECO-Report, or other

ecosystem management (EM) publications? If so, we offer you two opportunities to learn the

meanings of EM-related words. You may either visit BEMRP’s glossary at www.fs.fed.us/rm/

ecopartner or review terms defined annually in “What Do You Mean By That?” Whichever you prefer,

remember that some definitions change over time as new information and policies develop.

Periodically, we revise our web glossary page to reflect these changes. Feel free to suggest new terms

to include in our glossary. This year we’ve opted to define some potentially unfamiliar terms that

appear in articles found in this issue of ECO-Report.

Glossary – “What Do You Mean By That?”

FARSITE – A fire growth simulation model.

DATA-LOGGED THERMOGRAPHS – A temperature data

logger is a nonpermanent device secured in a stream channel.

It records stream water temperature in specified intervals, and

provides data that can be directly downloaded into a computer.

POSTMODERN – A conceptual framework that explains the

world in terms of indeterminacy, diversity, difference, and

complexity, as opposed to the modern conceptual framework,

which considers the world in terms of determinacy, unity,

synthesis, and simplification.

PARADIGM – A world view or general perspective that

represents what an individual or group thinks about the world.

People act according to their paradigms.

SOCIO-ECOSYSTEM – A hybrid term that references both

social and ecological systems.

Ecosystem Management’s Future
7

Ecosystem Management’s Future

Janie Canton-Thompson, Technology Transfer Specialist and

ECO-Report Editor, RMRS, Economic Aspects of Forest

Management on Public Lands, Missoula, MT

Outputs or inputs? Which are you most concerned about?

Traditionally, most people have advocated sustaining health—

whether it was for themselves, society, or the environment—

through symptom control (outputs). We train and employ

experts to manage symptoms. Examples are plentiful. We’ve

combated encroachment of invasive plants through releasing

biocontrols, pulling weeds, or herbicide-spraying infested

landscapes. We’ve treated declining grizzly bear populations by

limiting harvest. In human society, we’ve attacked increasing

crime rates by building more jails. Likewise, we’ve spent

billions of dollars treating human disease through prescription

drugs and surgical repair aimed at symptom mitigation. In each

case, we’ve focused on outputs—fewer weeds, more grizzly

bears, lower murder rate, and fewer heart attacks.

 More recently, some have begun worrying less about

symptom control and more about inputs—the productive

systems (environmental and social contexts) that enable desired

or undesired outputs. Ecosystem management and preventive

health care are examples of context-focused approaches that

assume healthy productive systems naturally and sustainably

offer the outputs we desire, with minimal need for symptom

treatment.

 “Input” or “context” management approaches can be

applied in different arenas. For example, wildlife habitat

restoration more reliably leads to sustainable grizzly bear

populations than does simply prohibiting bear killing. Ensuring

continuation of natural processes to the environment, such as

returning fire to historically fire-dependent landscapes, often

Symptoms, Productive Systems, and Sustainability

enables native plant communities to sustainably resist invasive

weeds better than herbicide-spraying does. Quality education,

employment, and family life are more a deterrent to crime than

simply building more jails. Likewise, healthy eating, exercise,

and stress management are more a deterrent to disease than

prescription drugs and surgery. In each case, instead of treating

symptoms (undesired output), system managers examine the

problems’ contexts, and attempt to return contexts to states of

health. Healthy systems provide us the outputs we desire, on a

sustainable basis at lower cost.

“Socio-ecosystem” (see Glossary, p. 6) managers know

that sustaining desired outputs in perpetuity requires attention

to inputs. One can apply band-aids to socio-ecosystem health

problems, but only up to a point. Each band-aid may stop a

symptom; however, band-aids don’t always remedy the

underlying imbalances causing symptoms to appear. Band-aids

may allow sustained outputs in the short-term, but eventually

the target system may become so unbalanced we end up with

more problems than we originally set out to treat. The side

effects become worse—more difficult and expensive to treat

than the original problem. Soon we are in a vicious cycle. On

the other hand, if we initially promote healthy systems, we

more easily and sustainably attain desired outputs, be it larger

wildlife populations, fewer weeds, more crime-free societies,

or bodies free of disease.

Want a healthy grassland community? Try returning fire to

the landscape. Want a healthy wildlife population? Try

decreasing habitat fragmentation. Want a healthy body? Try

eating more fresh fruits and vegetables. Ecosystem

management and preventive health care can take us down the

road to sustainability.

INPUT OUTPUT ▲

Natural processes can promote

healthy plant communities. Fire

photo by Steve Arno. Bunchgrass

community photo by Yvette Ortega.

Good elk habitat leads to healthy

elk populations. Elk habitat photo

by Janie Canton-Thompson. Elk

photo courtesy of the Bitterroot

National Forest.

Healthy diet enables an active

lifestyle. Randall Green, rock

climber. Vegetables photo from

Corel Gallery. Climber photo by

Kurt Krueger.

▲

▲
8

Ecosystem Management’s Future

BOOK

CORNER

A Review of

Supply-Side Sustainability

Janie Canton-Thompson, Technology Transfer Specialist

and ECO-Report Editor, RMRS, Economic Aspects of

Forest Management on Public Lands, Missoula, MT

“...the Earth is our one shot, and that is it.”1 Sound like

a doomsayer’s statement? Well, it’s not. In a “must-read”

book for those desiring cost-effective sustainability of our

“socio-ecosystem,” Supply-Side Sustainability authors

T.F.H. Allen, Joseph A. Tainter, and Thomas W. Hoekstra2

critically and comprehensively examine the notion of

sustainability through an interdisciplinary lens.

The book begins with a global perspective, dealing a

sound blow to the world view that humans are masters of

their destiny. Technology will not save us, and building

bigger and more powerful widgets is archaic and

detrimental to sustainability. The authors range broadly in

their treatise on sustainability, holistically examining the

interaction of biogeographical and social systems, as well as

economic viability.

 Sustainability means “maintaining, or fostering the

development of, the systemic contexts that produce the

goods, services, and amenities that people need or value, at

an acceptable cost, for as long as they are needed or

valued.”3 Our common sense notion of sustainability

assumes people must “do without” to acquire and sustain

desired living conditions. The book exposes the fallacy of

this view, offering a well-documented argument that

sustainability is a matter of understanding how “socioecosystems” work, and managing accordingly. Instead of

focusing on outputs and complicated management programs

to protect natural systems, we need to manage the context4

that regulates our natural systems. When system contexts

are healthy, desired system outputs will flow forth naturally.

We must supply ecosystems’ needs and no more, and let the

systems subsidize our management efforts. Sustainability

happens in a social context. It is at bottom a human values

question that mediates environment-society relationships,

influencing what we manage and what we manage for.

Monitoring and prediction are useful to set courses of action

and to determine if constraints stay unchanged, and if

desired results are becoming realities. Prediction assumes

presently identified constraints remain in place. If they do

not, prediction will be inaccurate.

According to the authors, sustaining socio-ecosystems

requires a five-pronged approach:

1. Manage for productive systems rather than for

their outputs.

2. Manage systems by managing their contexts.

3. Identify what dysfunctional systems lack and

supply only that.

4. Use ecological processes to subsidize

management efforts, rather than conversely.

5. Understand the problem of diminishing returns to

problem solving.5

These five points are foundational for the lessons we

learn throughout the book.

Chapters 2 and 3 develop a framework for understanding what enables societies to be sustainable, and present a

fascinating account of previous societies that sustained,

restored, or destroyed themselves. Complexity, energy subsidies, and diminishing returns to problem solving have

played crucial roles in understanding the rise and fall of

civilizations. Because the material world gives us no criteria

for what we want to sustain or how to do it, the sociopolitical system must develop approaches to accomplish

these tasks.

In chapters 4 through 6, the authors present a hierarchical approach to understanding and managing socioecosystems. This approach contains two major components

that are separate analytical considerations: 1) criteria that

determine what the observer will pay attention to, namely,

foreground as opposed to background considerations, and

2) scale of observation, in terms of scope and fineness of

distinction. There is an in-depth analysis of criteria for

observation and monitoring, including organisms, landscapes, populations, communities, biomes, the biosphere,

ecosystems, and energy flows, observable at different

scales. The final chapter offers a realistic assessment of

postmodern (see Glossary, p. 6) society’s ability to attain

sustainability. Because both societies and ecosystems are

dynamic, achieving sustainability is a moving target.

Societies develop to solve human problems—usually by

making themselves and their environment more complex.

Complexity is costly, and over time becomes subject to the

law of diminishing returns. In the final analysis, humans

need to use natural processes to subsidize their management efforts wherever possible. Our hope of sustainability

lies in managing for the systems that produce the resource

outputs we consume rather than managing directly for

outputs.

Supply-Side Sustainability will challenge the mindsets

of most readers. Complex equations are noticeably absent;

narrative accounts prevail. Those with lesser knowledge in

the fields of ecology and/or social science may reap giant

rewards if they are willing to diligently tackle the book with

an ecology dictionary in hand. This well-written,

(continued on page 12)
9

Moving Through the Night

Research Highlights

Sharon Ritter, Research/Management Coordinator, Bitterroot

National Forest and BEMRP, Hamilton, MT

Holding the spotlight next to my head, I peered through

the darkness at the mossy rocks and logs of the creek. Soon, a

tiny pair of amber eyes revealed the creature’s location.

“There’s one,” I called.

As the research/management coordinator for the Bitterroot

National Forest and BEMRP, I spend a little too much of my

time reviewing research proposals. Is this really what I had in

mind when I became a wildlife biologist? So last summer, I

jumped at the chance to get out to some of the researchers’

study sites. With more than 35 research projects going on in the

Forest in 2003, there was no shortage of sites to visit. The one

that most caught my fancy was helping do frog surveys at

night.

On an evening in July, I met up with Nathan Stone and his

two field assistants. Nathan is studying tailed frogs, a streamloving amphibian that does most of its feeding at night. This is

part of a much-needed, multi-state study of prescribed and

wildland fire effects on aquatic ecosystems. Healthy

watersheds and aquatic systems are among the goals

researchers and land managers must achieve as they address

Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth’s Four Threats.

After getting some quick training, we started our survey at

10:45 p.m. Now, for me to even be awake after 10 p.m. was

impressive. But the cool night air had me wide awake. Also, I

A researcher tags tailed frogs in the wee hours of the morning.

Photo by Nathan Stone.

Tailed frogs provide data on fire’s effects on aquatic ecosystems.

Photo by Nathan Stone.

knew I was in for a special treat; the world at night lit only by a

small light has a different feeling than in the daylight.

We walked in waders up a narrow stream within the burned

area. As I watched these three college students ahead of me, I

sent out a silent plea, “Knees, don’t fail me.” While we tried to

keep our footing on the slippery rocks, we searched for adult

frogs. While the others were good at spotting frogs, I did better

looking for their amber eyeshine reflected in my light. When

we found a frog, we put it into a marked plastic bag, and

proceeded on. After about an hour, Nathan and I headed back

to the truck to record data on the ones we’d caught, while the

others kept searching. Processing consisted of sexing,

measuring, and noting breeding status. Nathan marked them

using a liquid plastic fish tag inserted into their palms, a

different color combination for each frog. He then returned

each frog to the location where we captured it.

 I visited other research sites last summer, in many cases

marveling at the dedication of researchers and their assistants

that keeps many of them out day after hot day (or night after

night), walking steep hillsides that made my knees creak.

Lately, I’ve been reading a lot of research studies, and I’m even

more grateful for these dedicated people who help us answer

important questions about the lands under our care.

Ecosystem Management

Means Partnership

Furthering the goals of this project requires

public participation in decision making.

Would you like to become a partner?

For more information, please contact

Greg Jones, Program Leader

Rocky Mountain Research Station

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

e-mail: jgjones@fs.fed.us

Sue Heald, Forest Planning Officer,

Bitterroot National Forest

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

e-mail: sheald@fs.fed.us

Professor Jim Burchfield, Associate Dean

The University of Montana,

College of Forestry and Conservation

Missoula, MT 59812 (406) 243-6650

e-mail: jburch@forestry.umt.edu

Visit the Bitterroot Ecosystem Management

Research Project on the Internet!

www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecopartner
10

Research Highlights

Weak versus Strong

Invaders of Natural Plant Communities

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

RMRS, Wildlife Ecology in Rocky Mountain Landscapes,

Missoula, MT

Aggressive plant invaders threaten

the diversity and function of natural

systems throughout the world. In

response to this threat, much research

has focused on understanding

relationships between invading and

resident plant species, with the

common approach being to lump

species into two broad categories—

“exotic” versus “native.” Results of

these studies are conflicting. Some

indicate exotic species are more

prevalent in areas of high native

species diversity; others suggest the

opposite.

Our BEMRP-funded work within

bunchgrass communities of the Lolo

National Forest reconciles conflicting

previous results by incorporating a

simple notion into our analyses: all exotic species do not

behave alike. “Weak” plant invaders become minor

components of natural communities and are not known to

impact native species. In our region, such weak invaders

arrived primarily in the early 1900s and are now intermixed

throughout our natural communities. In contrast, “strong” plant

invaders are known to overrun natural communities at the

expense of native species. One of the most prevalent strong

invaders in our region is spotted knapweed (Centaurea

maculosa), a noxious weed introduced in the 1890s that has

now overtaken vast areas.

For comparison to other studies, we first analyzed

relationships between exotic and native species without

distinguishing between weak and strong invaders. We found

exotic and native species were positively correlated in

communities with low levels of invasion where both weak and

strong invaders occurred at low densities, but negatively

correlated in communities with high levels of invasion where

the strong invader spotted knapweed dominated. These results

suggest that conflicting relationships between exotic and native

species reported in previous studies may stem from the

prevalence of weak versus strong invaders within study

communities.

We next repeated analyses but split exotic species into

weak versus strong invaders. Results showed that weak

invaders, occurring at low densities, tended to be positively

associated with native species, driving overall patterns in low

invasion communities. These invaders essentially functioned

like natives, responding to similar ecological features, so that

areas supporting increased diversity of native species also

supported increased levels of weak invaders. Indeed, some

exotic species appear to coexist with native species. In contrast,

we found that strong invaders tended to be negatively

Strong invaders such as

spotted knapweed (right) tend

to negatively impact native

plant species like arrowleaf

balsamroot (above). Photos

by Dean Pearson.

associated with native species, driving overall patterns in high

invasion communities. Strong invaders often attained high

densities, exceeding population levels of native species, and

suppressing them in terms of diversity and

abundance.

 Just as exotic species vary in their

ability to impact native species, so do

native species vary in their response to

exotic species. We found that native

perennial forbs, consisting of over 50

species, were abundant in areas without

knapweed but showed steep declines as

knapweed density increased. In

contrast, native bunchgrasses showed

declines half as steep, and annual forbs

did not appear impacted. The native

species most impacted by knapweed

was arrowleaf balsamroot

(Balsamorhiza sagittata), a perennial

forb often abundant in bunchgrass

communities with low levels of

invasion. Balsamroot provides food for

insects, birds, small mammals, and big game. Therefore,

spotted knapweed invasion shifts native plant communities

away from perennial species, with largest effects on dominant

forb species like balsamroot. These changes are likely to have

profound impacts that ripple throughout the system.

Knowledge of the specific ecological impacts of strong

invaders is essential for devising appropriate management

strategies. For example, broadleaf herbicides are currently the

primary tool for effective knapweed control; yet these

chemicals are also known to suppress native perennial forbs

such as balsamroot. Therefore, use of broadleaf herbicides to

control knapweed may exacerbate some negative effects of

knapweed invasion by further shifting bunchgrass communities

away from native forbs. Broadleaf herbicides may be effective

when management goals are directed at grass restoration, but

may undermine success when they include restoration of native

forbs and system function. The efficacy of weed control

methods must be evaluated in an ecological context that

includes understanding specific impacts associated with strong

invaders such as knapweed.

Strong invaders are clearly a powerful force in natural

systems, whereas weak invaders appear relatively benign. Few

systems are likely to escape exotic species and the impact of

strong invaders. Research is therefore needed to evaluate the

ecological factors underlying the differing behavior of weak

versus strong invaders so we can recognize strong invaders

quickly and improve weed management efforts. The distinction

between weak and strong invaders is important for evaluating

weed management alternatives, reconciling conflicting results

from previous studies of natural communities, and moving

research towards better understanding of strong invaders and

their impacts. Effective management strategies require

knowledge of ecological consequences associated with exotic

plant invasions.
11

Using Fire to Restore Ecosystems

Research Highlights

Mick Harrington, Research

Forester, RMRS, Fire

Effects, Missoula, MT

As people view the low

elevation forests of western

Montana, many see the

continuous green of unbroken forest canopy and

perceive a natural, healthy

ecosystem. Surprisingly, the

very nature of this homogeneous condition renders

these communities

unhealthy and dissimilar

from forests in past

centuries. In general, our

perception of the past is

biased by our view of the

present. As we understand

the dire consequences of

this altered condition, we are testing various techniques to

restore a more desirable condition.

The Fire Effects Research Work Unit at the Fire Sciences

Lab is addressing two of the Chief’s four threats—fire and

forest health, and invasive weeds—by evaluating alternative

restoration treatments in a variety of forest and grassland

ecosystems. The three forest stands being studied differ greatly

from historical structure and species composition. That, in turn,

has led to unhealthy conditions exemplified by slow native

plant growth, significant insect and disease activity, and high

probability of uncharacteristically severe wildfire. Our

grassland study involves monitoring treatment effectiveness for

controlling noxious weeds in a native bunchgrass ecosystem.

The University of Montana Biological Sciences Department

received BEMRP support for three of these projects. Following

is a synopsis of our forest stand and grassland studies.

From 1992 to 1994, the Bitterroot National Forest and Fire

Lab conducted thinning and prescribed burning treatments in

the Lick Creek Demonstration/Research Forest to increase

ecosystem vigor and reduce severe wildfire potential in a dense

second growth ponderosa pine stand. One study measured 9-

year, post-treatment tree health. Results show that trees

responded positively to all treatments (thinning alone, and

thinning with spring burning or fall burning), showing higher

photosynthetic rates, lower moisture stress, greater young

foliage biomass, and faster growth than trees in untreated

stands. In general, we found no differences among the three

active treatments. This implies that managers can use

prescribed fire to reduce fuels, stimulate understory species,

and create seedbeds without negatively impacting the residual

stand.

Old-growth ponderosa pine/western larch stands are rare

and valuable, and their protection is vital. We studied old tree

health following several thinning and burning treatments on the

Lolo National Forest. This stand of 330-year old trees had

experienced fire at an

average 20-year return

interval before 1919, then

no fire or cutting for the

next 80 years. The dense

Douglas-fir understory,

established during the firefree period, was becoming

highly competitive with the

old trees and created a

potential for stand

replacement fire. After

cutting and burning these

understory trees, we

discovered that the old

trees responded with

greater water use, higher

foliage production and bud

size, and higher needle

nitrogen levels than trees

with no treatment. This suggests reduced stress, greater

resistance to insect attacks, and a greatly reduced crown fire

potential.

The threat of weed invasion is a concern throughout

western Montana. BEMRP funded a vegetation monitoring

study following herbicide, tree thinning, and fire treatments at

the Sawmill Creek Research Natural Area on the Bitterroot

Forest. The Forest treated several hundred acres of grassland

with herbicides to suppress noxious weeds, which had greatly

reduced productivity of the native bunchgrasses. Also, thinning

treatments were applied in the adjacent forested ravines to help

protect the old ponderosa pine from competition and severe

wildfire. A forestwide fire team burned both grassland and

forest sites, using carefully prescribed fires to return this

process to the fire-adapted ecosystems. We found an

immediate, significant reduction in spotted knapweed and

concurrent increase in native grass productivity. Five years

following treatment, knapweed is slowly returning. Thinning

and burning have greatly reduced the probability of stand

replacement fire in the old-growth stands. We plan additional

fire and herbicide treatments for this Research Natural Area to

return its ecosystem to a semblance of its historal character.

In 2000, Pinesdale was directly affected by an 18,000-acre

wildfire. The Bitterroot Forest and community of Pinesdale

established a cooperative agreement in 2002 to lessen the

probability of severe fire in the Sheafman Creek watershed

near this community. That means reducing the fuel hazard on

National Forest and adjacent private land. BEMRP is

supporting the field sampling and analysis conducted by the

Fire Lab to determine efficacy of the Sheafman Creek Fuels

Reduction Project thinning and prescribed burning treatments.

A local forest contractor has completed most of the thinning

and tree removal, and the Forest will soon undertake fuel

reduction burns. The Fire Lab will continue to monitor and

analyze the fire hazard until all operations are complete.

Burning excess fuels to help restore a ponderosa pine ecosystem at Sawmill

Creek Research Natural Area. Photo by Mick Harrington.
12

Research Highlights

Elaine Kennedy Sutherland, Research Biologist and Project

Leader, Ethan Mace, Riparian Biologist, and Michael K. Young,

Research Fisheries Biologist, RMRS, Ecology and Management

of Northern Rocky Mountain Forests, Missoula, MT

In the Northern Rockies, decisions on how to fight fire and

treat burned lands often consider trout populations and habitat.

Data taken from fish-bearing streams after fires have provided

important insight into fire effects, both short- and long-term.

The ideal research design to evaluate fire and firefighting

effects would include before-and-after data; however, such data

are rare, generally occurring in areas recently assessed for other

purposes but coincidentally burned. Because of logistical and

safety considerations, few measurements have been taken just

ahead of and immediately after active fires. We need this type

of information to evaluate the potential impacts of fire, fire

management practices, rehabilitation and restoration efforts,

and salvage logging on fish populations. With careful planning

and coordination between fire management incident commanders and research teams, collection of vital data on active fires is

possible.

In 2003, we took on this challenge in a pilot study funded

by BEMRP, the Northern Region, and National Fire Plan

research funds. There were several objectives:

• Observe and record fire’s immediate effects on the

riparian vegetation, stream channel morphology, and fish

habitat features of trout-bearing streams.

• Collect time-sensitive prefire data such as water chemistry for comparison to data collected immediately postfire,

comparing prefire and postfire fish populations and

quantifying the magnitude of any fish kills.

• Develop a rapid postfire assessment protocol for land

managers, based on what we developed for an existing

riparian study project.

• Create the opportunity to assess longer-term system

recovery.

To implement the study, we trained and fire-qualified a

team of four technicians and a crew leader. Team leaders

reached out to the National Interagency Fire Coordination

Trout Stream Fates during Wildfires

Center (NIFC), local line officers, incident commanders, and

others so that the team could be deployed on short notice. In

2003, the Northern Rockies, especially western Montana,

experienced many large fires. We collected data just ahead of

and immediately after large, uncontrolled wildfires. Efforts

included installing data-logged thermographs (see Glossary, p.

6) and stream samplers to evaluate stream temperature and

chemistry changes during and after fires, as well as evaluating

stream and streamside characteristics (forest structure, coarse

woody debris, and fish habitat quality attributes). The team

worked on eight large fires burning on the Bitterroot,

Beaverhead-Deerlodge, and Lolo National Forests.

Our work will guide firefighting activities, such as burnout

operations. For example, the resource team on the Big Creek

fire (Bitterroot Forest) asked us whether smoke from burnout

operations was adding ammonia to the stream water. Although

ammonia is toxic to fish, stream chemistry results for that fire

indicated no additional ammonia was added. During the Fish

Creek fire (Lolo Forest), Deer Creek burned severely. Deer

Creek runs through land owned by Plum Creek Timber Company, the State of Montana, and the Lolo Forest. This stream

contained westslope cutthroat trout, and when we performed a

postfire fish mortality survey, we found 136 dead fish, 2 live

fish, and indications that high temperatures killed fish. We

evaluated stream temperatures and chemistry, measured

channel characteristics, and estimated pre- and postburn woody

debris volume. Results from this effort have already been

delivered to Plum Creek, the State of Montana, and the Lolo

Forest, with much more information forthcoming. This study

demonstrates the ability of Forest Service Research to act

rapidly to provide information for our client partners in both

the private and public sectors.

(left) Matthew Burbank,

RMRS, takes riparian

large woody debris

measurements to provide

important insights into fire

effects. Photo by Damian

Cremins.

(right) Documented fish

kill in Deer Creek, Lolo

National Forest. This area

burned severely in 2003.

Photo by Ethan Mace.

comprehensive treatise on sustainability offers many examples

to illustrate the difficult concepts it explains. Readers will

experience a revelation that may dramatically change their

paradigm of societies and their environments.

Supply-Side Sustainability by T.F.H. Allen, Joseph A. Tainter,

and Thomas W. Hoekstra. Published in 2003 by Columbia

University Press, New York. 459 pages. ISBN: 0-231-10586-

X. Available in hardcover ($69.50) and paperback ($34.50).

 1Allen, T.F.H.; Tainter, Joseph A.; Hoekstra, Thomas W. 2003. SupplySide Sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 2.

 2T.F.H. Allen is an ecologist, and botany professor at the University of

Wisconsin, Madison. Tainter is an anthropologist and project leader for the

Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station in Albuquerque, NM.

Hoekstra is an ecologist, and Director of the Forest Service Inventory and

Monitoring Institute in Fort Collins, CO.

 3Op cit, p. 26.

 4As used here, “context” means the environment or setting within which

the system or thing of interest functions. For example, the context of

declining fish populations might be water quality degradation.

 5Op cit, p. 14.

Book Corner . . . (continued from page 8)
13

Research Highlights

Hydrologic Connectivity: Wilderness Watershed Contributions

to Ecosystem Health and Community Well-being

Clint Cook, Forestry Technician,

RMRS, Aldo Leopold Wilderness

Research Institute, Missoula, MT

As humans, we rely on fresh

water for many reasons, including

domestic, agricultural, and

recreational uses. In the United

States, our daily consumption of

water is estimated to average 100

gallons per person. Humans,

however, are not the only species

dependent on freshwater resources. The natural environment

also requires fresh water to

maintain its riverine and terrestrial ecosystems. One current

project sponsored by BEMRP

aims to understand connections

between freshwater resources and the ecosystems they support.

The connection between freshwater resources and the

Bitterroot Valley ecosystem is particularly important because

of the Valley’s rapid population growth. Flowing north to its

confluence with the Clark Fork of the Columbia, the Bitterroot

River and its tributaries drain about 2,800 square miles. The

River provides nearly 5 million gallons of water per day for

human uses within Ravalli County alone. With an annual

precipitation of only 12.3 inches, the Bitterroot Valley is

classified as a high desert environment. There is a long history

of agricultural use of land and water, but with a rapidly

growing population, some of this agricultural use is being

displaced.

To provide water for orchards, food crops, and hay,

farmers constructed dams in the Bitterroot Mountains in the

late 1800s and early 1900s. They were built to capture spring

runoff from snow melt and store it until late July and August

when flows in the river and its

tributaries are usually too low to

support irrigation. In 1964,

251,443 acres of the Bitterroot

Range were classified as Wilderness. Special provisions in the

Wilderness Act allowed continued operation and maintenance

of these dams for existing uses.

Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness dams have substantial

influence, both upstream and

downstream, on the biological

integrity of this wilderness

ecosystem, but these influences

may be considered tradeoffs with

human needs for the same

resource. The area’s rainfall

could not sustain established

agricultural production, and the groundwater supply could not

sustain the county’s current population levels without the

additional water added to groundwater from irrigation.

Approximately 90 percent of the water recharging the Valley’s

aquifers comes from open irrigation ditches and sheet flooding.

If irrigation practices within the Valley were modified (because

of exclusion of dams or modification of agricultural practices),

the biological system would be influenced, and availability of

groundwater for human uses would be severely diminished.

Forest Service stewards make many decisions that influence both ecological integrity of watersheds and human values

attached to those watersheds. In our case, BEMRP is actively

engaged in improving understanding of the wide variety of

connections to this hydrologic resource. Understanding human

connections to the hydrologic resource, and their effects on

ecological integrity of the drainage, will allow the agency to

make informed watershed management decisions.

Greg Jones, Research Forester and BEMRP Program Leader,

RMRS, Economic Aspects of Forest Management on Public

Lands, Missoula, MT

How can National Forest lands be managed across the

continuum from wilderness to the wildland/urban interface in a

way that allows fire to play its natural role while still protecting

private values? What fuel treatment prescriptions should be

applied to best reduce fire severity and modify fire behavior,

and yet require the least future maintenance effort? Where

should treatments be located on the landscape to have the most

impact? What are the risks and benefits of leaving untreated

corridor areas to accommodate various wildlife species? These

are some of the many questions managers must consider in (continued on page 14)

Fire and Forest Health—Landscape Model of Fuel and

Treatment Options

planning forest health restoration and hazardous fuel

treatments for an area such as the Bitterroot Front landscape.

The 471,000-acre Bitterroot Front landscape is

characterized by an east to west continuum, beginning with

developed private lands in the valley, transitioning to wildland/

urban interface, next to roaded National Forest lands, then

upslope to roadless areas, and finally reaching the SelwayBitterroot Wilderness to the west (see map on p. 14). Deep

canyons draining east toward the valley and Bitterroot River

tend to funnel precipitation, winds, and fires from the west

toward the lengthy wildland/urban interface to the east. They

also serve as travel routes for people and wildlife.

To provide water for orchards, food crops, and hay for livestock,

farmers constructed dams in the Bitterroot Mountains in the late

1800s and early 1900s, prior to Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness

designation. Forest Service photo.
14

Research Highlights

Researchers from Rocky Mountain Research Station and

The University of Montana are cooperating with Bitterroot

National Forest managers in a project on the Bitterroot Front,

using three state-of-art landscape models to develop and

analyze alternative spatial strategies for applying restoration

and fuel treatments. Minimum Travel Time (MTT), a fire

spread model derived from FARSITE (see Glossary on p. 6),

identifies the most likely and active paths of fire spread,

assuming ignition in the vicinity of the Bitterroot divide and

strong west winds blowing toward the wildland/urban interface.

SIMPPLLE is a spatially explicit model for simulating

vegetation change in the presence of fire, insects, and disease.

It models fire and other disturbances over time, both in the

absence and presence of forest health and fuel treatments.

MAGIS spatially schedules vegetation treatments, considering

resource objectives (such as wildlife and watershed values), as

well as operational constraints (for example, budget and

staffing).

These models address different important aspects of the

forest health restoration and fuel treatment problem. Researchers and managers will work together investigating how to

best integrate use of these diverse models to effectively address

vegetation treatment design questions. Results from this effort

will provide guidance for location of a BEMRP-sponsored

landscape project to test and demonstrate forest health

restoration and fuel treatments. We hope to develop a modeling

process that can be applied elsewhere to analyze forest health

restoration and hazardous fuel treatment strategies.

Fire & Forest Health . . . (continued from page 13)

BEMRP’s landscape analysis study will include major

portions of the Bitterroot Front Range. Graphic by

Kevin Hyde.

Examples of output maps of the same area from three different

landscape models used to develop and analyze restoration and fuel

treatments. Graphic created by Kevin Hyde.

New Publication Available

Well-intended human endeavors can go awry,

triggering unanticipated consequences. In their new

journal article, “Effects of Biological Control Agents and

Exotic Weed Invasion on Deer Mouse Populations,”

Ortega, Pearson, and McKelvey demonstrate how deer

mice populations have boomed on account of the release

of exotic insects intended to control spotted knapweed.

Elevated populations are of concern because mice play

important ecological roles, including being carriers of

human disease. The authors suggest applying more fully

developed criteria to screen potential biocontrol agents,

thereby reducing the probability of unintended

consequences.

Ortega, Yvette K.; Pearson, Dean E.; McKelvey,

Kevin S. 2004. Effects of Biological Control Agents

and Exotic Weed Invasion on Deer Mouse

Populations. Ecological Applications. 14: 241-253.

MTT: Fire pathways assuming ignition near divide and

westerly winds.

SIMPPLLE: Stands with fire probability over 50

percent within 10 years.

MAGIS: Stands selected for fuel reduction treatments –

Rx fire or mechanical thin.
15

Getting the Word Out

Diffusion of Innovations—Rock, Rope, and Collar

Janie Canton-Thompson, Technology

Transfer Specialist and ECO-Report

Editor, RMRS, Economic Aspects of

Forest Management on Public Lands,

Missoula, MT

You meet a man wearing a green

uniform. He looks frustrated. There’s a

collar around his neck, and attached to it

is a 6-foot rope tied to a heavy rock.

Every time the man steps toward his

goal of “spreading the word”—what

we’re calling here “diffusing an

innovation”—the rock, rope, and collar

constrain his movement.

What do these have to do with

diffusing innovations? The collar, rope,

and rock represent complexity, barriers,

and unanticipated consequences. All

hold the man back, slowing his communication effectiveness.

Diffusion of innovation is the process by which a new idea,

process, or object is communicated over time among groups of

people. This is also known as technology transfer, application,

extension, or knowledge utilization. The process is anything

but straightforward.

 “Ecosystems are not only more complex than we think;

they are more complex than we can think,” noted former Forest

Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas at a meeting of Forest

Service employees. Substitute the phrase “social systems” for

“ecosystems,” and one begins to grasp the difficulty of

diffusing innovations to people. As with ecosystems, altering a

part of social systems can sooner or later change every life on

earth. For instance, North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA) is altering economies all across the globe.

Consider the innovation featured in BEMRP—the

Ecosystem Management (EM) paradigm (see Glossary, p. 6).

Diffusing or communicating this paradigm, developed in the

early 1980s, is an ongoing effort, and frequently controversial

because it represents a new way of managing natural systems.

How can we best present the paradigm so everyone can

understand its intent and features? What communication

channels do we use? Multi-media and interpersonal channels

are many, complex, and tailored for different audiences.

Individuals, groups, and organizations within social systems

interpret messages differently. Communication requires

knowing these different audiences, building relationships with

opinion leaders and authority figures, resolving conflicts that

develop, and demonstrating to potential users why the

paradigm is valuable to them. The more complex the

innovation, the more work required to diffuse it.

According to Everett Rogers,1 a leading authority on

diffusion of innovations, chances improve that innovations will

be adopted, and adopted relatively quickly, when all

stakeholders perceive them as advantageous, compatible with

their respective values/experiences/needs,

and easy to understand and use. It also

helps if innovations include a “try before

you buy” option, and produce visible

positive results. Innovations that don’t meet

these criteria are less likely to be adopted,

or are adopted at slower rates.

 Diffusion specialists work under the

constraints imposed by several stages of

adopting new ideas. Rogers identifies five

stages: awareness (How do targeted

audiences learn of an innovation?), interest

(What communication mechanisms

motivate what types of people to seek more

information about it?), evaluation (What

processes do different kinds of people use

in deciding whether to try an innovation?),

trial (What kinds of options do people have

in trying out an innovation?), and adoption (What kinds of

people accept and commit to what kinds of innovations?). The

difficulty of diffusing innovations becomes especially

challenging when deciding whether adopting an innovation will

be an individual choice, a collective decision (where most of

those affected must be convinced an innovation is worthwhile),

or superimposed by higher authorities.

These are a snapshot of some complex variables that retard

or facilitate technology transfer—the rock, rope, and collar that

make spreading the word so difficult to accomplish. The more

that people charged with diffusing innovations (called change

agents) understand 1) innovations, 2) idiosyncrasies of

communication channels and patterns, 3) time constraints

surrounding adoption, 4) social and cultural characteristics of

potential adopters (for example, individuals or groups), and 5)

nature of human group conflict and its drivers (relative to

natural resource issues, in our case),2 the more effectively they

can facilitate adoption.

Change agents dare not ignore unanticipated consequences

of innovations, which typically alter societies in unexpected

and unintended ways. Rogers tells how introduction of

snowmobiles in Lapland “led to disastrous consequences

for...reindeer, and for the Lapps who depended on the animals

for their livelihood.”3 For example, frightened reindeer had

fewer calves, and Lapps slaughtered many animals for meat to

pay for snowmobile purchase, gas, and maintenance. The

snowmobile revolution pushed the Skolt Lapps into a tailspin

of unemployment and reliance on government subsistence

payments. The rock attached to the collar grows heavier as the

word about unanticipated negative consequences spreads.

Regardless of innovation source and type, there are

tradeoffs when the diffusion process is set in motion. In nature,

disturbances like fire, wind, and floods change ecosystems in

unpredictable ways. Some species lose, others win, but nature

doesn’t care. Nevertheless, people care because they assign

Diffusing an innovation. Graphic adapted

from Corel Gallery.

(continued on page 16)
16

Getting the Word Out

Science, Experience, and Education: A Hike in the Forest

Diffusion of Innovations . . . (continued from page 15)

value to things, interpreting changes as good or bad in accord

with their values, beliefs, and experiences. By human

standards, innovations are also “natural disturbances” that

differentially affect members of society. Once they are adopted

by a critical mass of people, the social world is never again the

same. Change agents need to anticipate the tradeoffs provoked

by their innovations. Above all, they need to understand that

most natural resource-based conflicts are rooted in deep-seated

value differences that can never be fully resolved.

To wrap up, spreading the word about innovations is a

multi-faceted, difficult process. Rogers and others offer tools to

lighten our load. They can help you crack your rock, discard

some weight, and hasten your progress. Collars, ropes, rocks,

and laws of nature and society—building the bridge from

research to development to application (diffusion) is both

exciting and a lot of work. It will take you places you’ve never

been, or expect to go. Adventure is guaranteed.

 1Rogers, Everett M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, Fourth Edition.

New York: The Free Press.

 2Nie, Martin. 2003. Drivers of Natural Resource-based Political

Conflict. Policy Sciences. 36: 307-341.

 3Rogers, p. 408.

Janie Canton-Thompson, Technology Transfer Specialist and

ECO-Report Editor, RMRS, Economic Aspects of Forest

Management on Public Lands, Missoula, MT

White coats, rubber gloves, and microscopes? Sound like

scientists engaged in an intricate laboratory experiment? Well,

experiments don’t just happen in sterile labs; they even take

place on National Forest lands. 2003 marked the 10th

anniversary of an experiment on Montana’s Bitterroot National

Forest. RMRS research scientists Mick Harrington, Clint

Carlson (retired), Steve Arno (retired), and The University of

Montana’s School of Forestry professor Carl Fiedler began

their research at Lick Creek Demonstration/Research Forest in

1991. They designed different treatments—thinning,

understory burning, or thinning and understory burning—that

Bitterroot Forest managers applied to portions of three

experimental sites. Researchers subsequently began

monitoring vegetation on these sites, and on a similar control

(no treatment) site, observing changes over time.

On June 11, 2003, interested area residents, including a

KPAX TV reporter, examined first-hand how the experimental

sites look today. Two RMRS work units—BEMRP and Fire

Effects—partnered with The University of Montana and

Bitterroot Forest to host the tour.

Twenty-seven tour participants gathered at Wood’s Cabin

on the shore of beautiful Lake Como to hear Rick Floch,

forester on the Bitterroot Forest, narrate a fascinating tale of

Lick Creek’s social, biological, and geological history. Bud

and Irene Wood, donors of the now Forest Service-owned

cabin, accompanied the group.

Next, participants were bussed to the Lick Creek

experimental forest. Here, they learned that researchers first

began studying this forest in 1945. Harrington, Fiedler, and

Carlson described their current experiment, designed to

evaluate how thinning, understory burning, and combined

thinning and burning treatments could help restore ponderosa

pine forests. Like many other American forests, nearly a

century of fire exclusion has caused serious health challenges

for this forest.

University of Montana Professor Carl Fiedler (left) and Research

Forester Mick Harrington, RMRS, describe BEMRP monitoring

results at Lick Creek Demonstration/Research Forest. Photo by

Brooke Thompson.

Researchers explained that ponderosa pines are

wonderfully adapted to frequent low-intensity fires. Without

fire, shade-tolerant Douglas-fir outcompete the pines for

valuable nutrients and water. Bitterroot Forest wildlife biologist

John Ormiston also talked about treatment effects on wildlife,

particularly elk and birds. With interests whetted, participants

hiked downhill through a mosaic of treated and untreated

forest. Periodically, they stopped to discuss treatment

effectiveness.

Back at Wood’s Cabin, discussion and fellowship

continued for participants who opted to share a Job Corpscatered dinner. Reflecting on what they enjoyed most about the

tour, participants focused on interacting and learning in a

forested environment. For some, walking amidst the

experimental plots provided an eye-opening experience. Others

valued hiking through the forest and hearing researchers’ and

managers’ interpretive commentaries. Some simply enjoyed

being in the forest. The interaction of science, experience,

education, and on-site presentations by speakers captivated yet

others. All agreed the treated sites looked much healthier than

the control sites, 10 years following treatments. Exclaimed one

couple, “We’ll be back!” They are eager to see what the treated

sites will look like down the road, say in another 10 years.
17

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

Getting the Word Out

Ethan Mace “No Place I’d Rather Be”

(continued on page 18)

Ethan Mace in the field studying riparian dynamics and

disturbance processes. Photo by Eric Ziegler.

Janie Canton-Thompson, Technology Transfer Specialist

and ECO-Report Editor, RMRS, Economic Aspects of

Forest Management on Public Lands, Missoula, MT

“I can’t think of any place I’d rather be than in a stream or

on a fire. To have them both is just outstanding!” Ethan Mace,

riparian biologist in RMRS’s Ecology and Management of

Northern Rocky Mountain Forests Work Unit, started life in

Shawnee and Eufaula, Oklahoma. Early, he relished “playing in

creeks and looking at turtles, frogs, and snakes,” and watching

nature shows on T.V. His science teacher grandparents gave

him a yen for nature; his parents unconditionally supported his

biological pursuits. Hunting, fishing, and hiking also immersed

him in nature.

“Fire was always a part of my childhood. I’ve been

fascinated with it since day one.” His grandparents annually

burned thinning piles on their land, with Ethan’s help. “I look

back, and it was forestry we were doing.”

Ethan commends his high school teachers, Mrs. Capps and

Mrs. Shirley, who taught him to think analytically. “They

accommodated my desire to learn and offered me a ‘ticket of

knowledge’ to chase whatever adventure I wanted.” At the end

of his senior year, a car accident changed plans to attend

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Ethan

enrolled in Colorado College. Here, students complete one

course every three and a half weeks, under the “block plan.”

After 2 years, Ethan concluded: “I need to absorb knowledge—

sort of sit back and soak it in. I couldn’t do that with the

intensive nature of the block program.” Transferring to The

University of Montana, he enrolled in Forestry School, hoping

for a Forest Service career in fire management. His friend and

partner, Susan Scalia, strongly supported his decision, and he

credits her with helping him achieve success.

Working his way through Forestry School, Ethan did

various jobs. Discovering fire management jobs were scarce, he

opted to study fisheries, and worked for the Lolo National

Forest as a fisheries technician. Later, he worked on the

Missoula District fire crew. “That was heaven because they let

me set stuff on fire. I just love fire. I was getting my fisheries

understanding, and my fire understanding.” Completing a

challenging academic program, Ethan received a bachelor’s

degree in aquatic wildlife biology.

Next, he pursued a masters degree in resource conservation, emphasizing riparian restoration. Professors Jim

Burchfield and Jack Ward Thomas were a significant influence.

Thomas made him realize that “pontification is easier than

responsibility,” and ecosystems are more complex than humans

can think. Burchfield taught him the importance of collaboration. In 2000, he finished his masters course work, along with

his professional paper addressing fire’s effects on riparian

ecosystems.

Then came the fires of 2000. Ethan fought fire on Powell

District, Clearwater National Forest, transferring afterward to

Nine Mile Ranger District, Lolo National Forest, to do postfire

rehabilitation.

 Searching for his dream job, in spring 2001 Ethan learned

about a vacant position in the Ecology Unit. “I told [Project

Leader Elaine Sutherland] there are people who know more

about fire and people who know more about fish, but nobody

knows more about fire’s effects on fish than I do. Of course,

that was being overzealous trying to get the job. I never wanted

a job so bad.” He got the job!

Ethan embraces research on riparian area dynamics and

disturbance processes because it delves into ecosystem complexity. Initially, his study team identified drainages on the

Lolo and Bitterroot that were similar but had different fire

histories. The team developed fire histories for riparian zones

and upland areas to compare and contrast them. Ethan studies

the linkages among fire characteristics, tree demographics, and

fish habitat, as well as active wildland fires and their influence

on fish.

Another component of his research is “rapid response,”

meaning he goes on active fires and conducts research while

they burn. “First, we find the right active fire—big, extreme,

accessible, with a low probability of being suppressed.”

Arriving within 24 hours of detection, Ethan’s “Rapid Response Team” coordinates with the Incident Command Team.

“We wake up at 04:30 a.m., hike into the belly of the beast, get

our equipment in the stream, and get out by 13:00. That gives

us a 2-hour buffer before the most intense burning period. We

use time of day as our major safety feature.”
18

Spotlight . . . (continued from page 17)

Getting the Word Out

Janie Canton-Thompson, Technology Transfer Specialist and

ECO-Report Editor, RMRS, Economic Aspects of Forest

Management on Public Lands, Missoula, MT

“And what is so rare as a day in June? Then if ever come

perfect days.”1 Forty-five field trip participants who toured

Sawmill Research Natural Area (RNA) and the Burnt Fork

Ranch on an idyllic June 3, 2003 afternoon/evening outing

couldn’t agree more with 19th century bard, James Russell

Lowell. Sponsored by BEMRP, Bitterroot National Forest,

Rocky Mountain Research Station, The University of Montana,

and Burnt Fork Ranch, the trip helped interested people learn

about the work underway at Sawmill RNA and the Burnt Fork

Ranch. Here, Forest and ranch managers aim to restore

grasslands and forests under their stewardship. This means they

must control exotic weeds that started invading the area

decades ago, and return fire, a natural process, to this

ponderosa pine and bunchgrass ecosystem.

“Research Natural Areas are lands within the National

Forest System that are permanently protected as places to

conduct research and monitoring, maintain biological diversity,

and foster education. Here, scientists can ‘read’ the lives of

trees, wildflowers, soils, animals and landforms to learn how

nature works.”2 In 1992, the Forest Service established

Sawmill RNA “. . . as the best remaining example of Idaho

fescue/bluebunch wheatgrass and rough fescue/Idaho fescue

habitat types on the Bitterroot National Forest.”3 Elk heavily

use this mountain foothill site for winter range.

Researchers Mick Harrington, Fire Sciences Laboratory,

and Peter Rice, The University of Montana, are guiding

Sawmill restoration management by the Bitterroot Forest.

Managers have been treating invasive weeds, thinning stands of

trees too dense for optimum forest health, and reintroducing

fire as a natural process. During the trip, Harrington and Rice

explained their extensive monitoring of vegetative response to

treatments, thinning, and fire. Restoration efforts found an

appreciative audience, and several inquired how they might

pattern their private land stewardship after the RNA model.

Burnt Fork Ranch managers are treating weeds, thinning

their forest, and using fire to clean up fuels on their property

adjacent to Sawmill RNA. Their restoration efforts resemble

those under way on the RNA. Here is a wonderful example of

how private land owners can learn from research and

management occurring on our National Forests and apply that

knowledge to restore their own lands. If you are interested you

can read about the Burnt Fork Ranch’s restoration efforts in the

May-June 2003 issue of Bugle, published by the Rocky

Mountain Elk Foundation.

Come join us for future tours and learn more about how

public and private lands are being restored to historical

conditions. You can contribute to the sustainability of your own

lands.

 1Lowell, James Russell. 1848. The Vision of Sir Launfal. In: Cross,

Tom Peete; Smith, Reed; Stauffer, Elmer C. eds. 1931. Good Reading for

High Schools: American Writers. Boston: Ginn and Company. p. 213.

Forest Service, Ranch Owners, and Habitat Restoration—

A Common Vision

 2Research Natural Areas—A Living Library. [n.d.] [Place of

publication unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Research Station, Intermountain Region, and Northern

Region. 6 p.

 3Rice, Peter; Harrington, Mick. 2003. Native Bunchgrass Community

Restoration Using Knapweed Herbicides and Fire. Unpublished handout

supplied to Sawmill RNA tour participants on June 3, 2003. p. 1.

For Ethan, ecosystem management means incorporating

the linkages between different landscapes and organisms.

“We’re exploring those interactions so they can be incorporated

in management plans.” His research emphasizes landscape

level analysis, consistent with BEMRP objectives and new

RMRS forest research guidelines.

Running a successful field campaign also involves crews,

logistics, and safety. “I’ve gotten to work with some awesome

people, and I like that part a lot! These field crews end up being

pretty close to me by the end of the year, so I take it personal

about their safety.”

 “In my Forest Service career, I’ve gone from doing

snorkel surveys in 6 degrees Celsius water—that’s pretty

chilly—to being out in front of ripping fires in the heat of

summer. Everything I’ve done has been a team effort. All the

people who promoted the success of the study so far—they’re

the ones it’s all about. I can’t stress enough that it’s not a oneman show. We work together.” According to Ethan, understanding ecological linkages is paramount because it’s a key to

improving management techniques. “I think we’re just scratching the surface on what we can do with this, and I’d like to add

a huge technology transfer component down the road.”

Ethan anticipates more service to the Bitterroot Forest, as a

resource advisor. “I’d rather do science than think about doing

science. I’m all about ‘just do it!’” Outside work, he expects to

continue hunting, fishing, hiking, remodeling his house, and

doing family time.

Lessons in restoration—On a memorable June afternoon, BEMRP

field trip participants observe the effects of herbicides in improving

health of native grasslands. Photo by Janie Canton-Thompson.
19

Getting the Word Out

Janie Canton-Thompson, Technology Transfer Specialist and

ECO-Report Editor, RMRS, Economic Aspects of Forest

Management on Public Lands, Missoula, MT

How can the Forest Service get messages out to the public to

promote good land stewardship? What better way than to gain an

understanding of how organizations specializing in conservation/

environmental education (CE/EE) successfully accomplish their

work?

In 2000, the Forest Service’s Northern Region (Region 1) and

Bitterroot National Forest possessed no directory of CE/EE

providers when they needed to “get the word out” about the fires

that burned much of the Forest. Although lots of CE/EE efforts

were underway, coordination appeared minimal. By better

understanding the local CE/EE network, Forest Service specialists

thought they and CE/EE groups might work together to achieve

common goals. BEMRP then issued a call for proposals to address

six knowledge gaps:

1. Who provides CE/EE programming?

2. What topics do they cover?

3. What makes CE/EE more or less efficient or effective?

4. Are there program duplications?

5. Do members of these educational networks communicate with each other, and if so, how?

6. Are there opportunities to partner with CE/EE organizations?

The University of Montana and Aldo Leopold Wilderness

Research Institute scientists developed a two-phase study. First,

they assessed education programs offered by Bitterroot and

Missoula area CE/EE groups. Researchers surveyed and interviewed 15 group representatives, assessing covered topics,

audience type (for example, group served), and activity type (for

example, field trips) used to promote learning. They also identified

the general communication pattern among CE/EE programs.

Researchers did a follow-up assessment, surveying representatives

from 13 of the original 15 CE/EE programs. Survey data were

intended to increase researchers’ understanding of the direction of

information flow among groups, by specific topic (for example,

wildland fire). It also identified information sources, and how

coordination between groups and the Bitterroot Forest might

deliver more effective CE/EE messages.

The study answered many questions. For example, the most

common form of program delivery is the field trip. Fifth and sixth

grade classes and teachers have the most CE/EE programs

available to them; children under age 5 have the fewest. Analysis

revealed Bitterroot Valley CE/EE organizations are extremely

well-connected and coordinated. Groups respond to new information quickly, and it eventually reaches everyone. All CE/EE

groups have multiple pathways to channel information to all other

CE/EE groups.

Bitterroot Valley and Missoula area CE/EE educators use 60

different organizations or individuals as information sources for

their educational programming. They also consult the Internet,

books, and journals. For example, CE/EE educators consulted 24

unique sources on the topic of fire ecology and 31 on watershed

restoration. Richest sources of unique information are for watershed restoration and land stewardship. Bitterroot Valley groups

communicate with the Bitterroot Forest through face-to-face

communication, telephone contacts, and e-mail. Missoula area

groups communicate more with the Lolo Forest than the Bitterroot. Although Bitterroot Valley educators seek information

primarily from Bitterroot-based sources, they also use several

Missoula-based groups. Information sources consulted by CE/EE

groups include Region 1, Rocky Mountain Research Station, and

Fire Sciences Lab. Analysis shows communication networks for

individual topics are not fully saturated—not all groups communicate with all other groups on a given topic.

If people gain knowledge about the environment, how its

pieces work together, and factors that limit its function, they will

likely act more responsibly and help sustain all its parts in

harmony. CE/EE’s goal is an informed citizenry engaged with

natural resource management issues and direction. Improved

communication and coordination, among and through CE/EE

programs, help create an informed citizenry. “That’s the power of

education,” remarked Kari Gunderson, one of the study’s researchers. This research project has helped local Forest Service managers better understand what kind of coordination and

communication takes place in local CE/EE organizations. They

know better how to enhance their messages about people’s

connection to the land and good stewardship across all landscapes.

Bitterroot Environmental Education Partners (BEEP)—a

group formed at the same time the research began—is delighted

because research findings will help legitimize grant applications to

expand/improve its CE/EE programs. Gunderson exclaimed, “Talk

about application. They’re saying, ‘This is great. We can say that

there’s actually been research done on effectiveness and efficiency

of educational programming, and where the high and low representation is if we want to offer new programming.’” BEEP used

the research results to help develop a 5-year Strategic Plan.

Results show where BEEP is now, which topics and audiences are

underserved, and indicate arenas for future programming. Concluded Gunderson, “Change is happening, and it’s informed

change”—largely because of this CE/EE research project’s

findings.

Websites or publications that provide additional information:

-Montana Environmental Education Association,

www.montanaeeassociation.com/

-Montana Ecosystem Management Learning Center Program,

www.forestry.umt.edu/learning/

-North American Association for Environmental Education,

www.naaee.org

-The Journal of Environmental Education,

www.heldref.org/html/body-jee.html

-Environmental Education Research,

www.tandf.co.uk/journals/carfax/13504622.html

-ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental

Education, www.ericse.org/journals.html

“That’s the Power of Education!”

Conservation education

groups encourage

responsible stewardship

through communication

and coordination. Photo

courtesy of the Bitterroot

National Forest.
20

ECO-Report

Bitterroot Ecosystem Management

Research Project

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

P.O. Box 8089

Missoula, MT 59807

Program Leader’s Note

BEMRP Journeys on: Vision for the Next 5 Years

Greg Jones, Research Forester and BEMRP Program Leader,

RMRS, Economic Aspects of Forest Management on Public

Lands, Missoula, MT

Last fall the Rocky Mountain Research Station conducted

a 10-year review of BEMRP and the other four ecosystem

management research units in the Station. As a result of that

review, BEMRP was re-chartered for another 5 years. A central

focus in BEMRP’s new charter is undertaking an integrated

landscape-scale research/management project, with replication

of treatments to address critical information gaps associated

with fuel and restoration treatments. This research will build on

past BEMRP and other relevant research. Our landscape

research/management project would be located somewhere

within the 471,000-acre Bitterroot Front landscape. First, we

will conduct an integrated analysis of the landscape to identify

effective locations for this project, and other future vegetationtreatment projects. (See “Landscape Model of Fuel and

Treatment Options” article on p. 13.)

In numerous ways, the Bitterroot National Forest and

surrounding lands typify forest conditions and management

challenges present in many areas of the Western United States,

making this an excellent location for the project. The area

contains a variety of fire regimes where naturally occurring

wildland fire once played an important role in shaping

vegetation and wildlife components over many centuries.

Successful fire protection and suppression programs have

produced vegetative structures and fuel accumulations

increasingly susceptible to higher intensity fires. Fires are also

becoming ever more resistant to control. Firefighter exposure

to complex wildland fire environments, public safety and

health issues, and settlement in the wildland/urban interface all

contribute to complex decisionmaking, difficult fire

suppression, and expensive attempts to exclude wildland fire

from the assessment area. Exacerbating this situation is an

extensive and continually expanding wildland/urban interface

along the National Forest/private land boundary.

Fuels treatment and forest health have become major

priorities in managing National Forests, as evidenced by

Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (1995, revised

2001), the Cohesive Strategy, the National Fire Plan, the 10-

Year Comprehensive Strategy, the first of Chief Bosworth’s

Four Great Threats, and the President’s Healthy Forests

Initiative. Extensive areas of forestland with unnaturally high

fuel buildups and associated forest health issues, along with a

continually expanding wildland/urban interface, lead to the

conclusion that treatments for hazardous fuels and forest

health will be high priority well into the foreseeable future. It

is essential that land managers be able to characterize and

evaluate how vegetation treatments are likely to affect the

amount and severity of wildfires, as well as various insects and

diseases over both the short- and long-term.

Bitterroot Front Range, north of

Hamilton, MT. Photo by Dave Bunnell.