United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-232

January 2010

Management Guide to Ecosystem 

Restoration Treatments:

Whitebark Pine Forests of the 

Northern Rocky Mountains, U.S.A.

Robert E. Keane

Russell A. Parsons

ECOS STEM

TREATMENTS

RESTORATION • FUEL REDUCTION • SILVICULTURAL
Keane, Robert E.; Parsons, Russell A. 2010. Management guide to ecosystem 

restoration treatments: Whitebark pine forests of the northern Rocky Mountains, 

U.S.A. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-232. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 133 p.

Abstract

Whitebark pine is declining across much of its range in North America because of 

the combined effects of mountain pine beetle epidemics, fire exclusion policies, 

and widespread exotic blister rust infections. This management guide summarizes 

the extensive data collected at whitebark pine treatment sites for three periods: 

(1) pre-treatment, (2) 1 year post-treatment, and (3) 5 years post-treatment (one site 

has a 10 year post-treatment measurement). Study results are organized here so that 

managers can identify possible effects of a treatment at their own site by matching it 

to the most similar treatment unit in this study, based on vegetation conditions, fire 

regime, and geographical area. This guide is based on the Restoring Whitebark Pine 

Ecosystems study, which was initiated in 1993 to investigate the effects of various 

restoration treatments on tree mortality, regeneration, and vascular plant response on 

five sites in the northern Rocky Mountains. The objective was to enhance whitebark 

pine regeneration and cone production using treatments that emulate the native 

fire regime. Since data summaries are for individual treatment units, there are no 

analyses of differences across treatment units or across sites.

Keywords: whitebark pine, ecosystem restoration, prescribed burning, fuel 

sampling, fire regime

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your 

mailing information in label form through one of the following media. 

Please specify the publication title and series number.

Fort Collins Service Center

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1122

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 W. Prospect Road

Fort Collins, Colorado 80526

ECOS STEM

TREATMENTS

RESTORATION • FUEL REDUCTION • SILVICULTURAL
The Authors

Robert E. Keane is a Research Ecologist with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station at the Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, 

Montana. Since 1985, Keane has developed various ecological computer models 

for research and management applications. He has also conducted field research 

in whitebark pine ecology, fuel dynamics, and landscape ecology. His most recent 

research includes the construction of mechanistic ecosystem process models 

that integrate fire behavior and effects into succession simulation, restoration of 

whitebark pine in the Northern Rocky Mountains, spatial simulation of successional 

communities on the landscape using GIS and satellite imagery, and the mapping of 

fuels and fire regimes for fire behavior prediction and hazard analysis. He received 

his B.S. degree in forest engineering from the University of Maine, Orono; his M.S. 

degree in forest ecology from the University of Montana, Missoula; and his Ph.D. in 

forest ecology from the University of Idaho, Moscow.

Russell A. Parsons is a Research Ecologist with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, at the Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory in Missoula, 

Montana. Russ has worked in a variety of fire and natural resources positions including 

as a fire monitor at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks and as an agroforestry 

extensionist in the Cloud Forests of Ecuador as a Peace Corps Volunteer. Since 2000, 

Russ has worked in remote sensing, GIS, statistical analysis, and modeling. Russ 

received his B.S. degree in Forestry from the University of California, Berkeley; M.S. 

degree in Forestry from the University of Idaho, Moscow; and his Ph.D. in Forestry at 

the University of Montana in Missoula. His current research focus is in fuel science, 

where he has developed a new spatially explicit fuel modeling system and has 

explored how variability in wildland fuels at different scales affects fire behavior 

predictions.

Acknowledgments

We thank the large number of skilled ecological technicians who participated in 

this project since 1993: Todd Carlson, Courtney Couch, Daniel Covington, Laura 

Dickinson, Janice Garner, Myron Holland, Violet Holley, Curtis Johnson, Cat Maxwell, 

Ben McShan, Jim Menakis, Scott Mincemoyer, Kirsten Schmidt, Virginia Arensberg, 

Dennis LeMond, Nadev Kaufman, Cassandra Koerner, and Wayne Lyngholm of the 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station at the Missoula Fire Sciences 

Laboratory. We also thank other people who participated in the study: Joe Scott, Eva 

Karau, Alisa Keyser, Mick Harrington, Lisa Holsinger, Matt Rollins, and Helen Smith 

of the Rocky Mountain Research Station at the Missoula Fire Sciences Laboratory. 

We would also like to thank the people from the National Forests who made the study 

possible: Karen Harvey, Steve Munson, Bob Lippincott, Jon Weston, Chris Ourada, and 

Vicki Edwards of the Clearwater National Forest; Barbara Levesque, Breck Hudson, 

Diana Schuldt, and Terry Black of the Salmon-Challis National Forest; Leslie Anderson, 

Cathy Stewart, and Bruce “Buster” Windhorst of the Bitterroot National Forest. We 

also thank Bryan Donner, Melissa Jenkins, Helen Smith, and Elizabeth Reinhardt of the 

USDA Forest Service for technical reviews. Last, we thank Steve Arno who helped start 

this study.

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for 

reader information and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service.
Research Summary

Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) forests are declining across most of their range 

in North America because of the combined effects of three factors: (1) several 

major mountain pine beetle epidemics that occurred over the last 70 years, 

(2) an extensive and successful fire exclusion management policy, and (3) extensive 

infections of the exotic white pine blister rust fungus (Cronartium ribicola). The loss of 

whitebark pine is serious for upper subalpine ecosystems because it is considered a 

keystone species across most of its range, producing large seeds that are an important 

food source for more than 110 animal species.

This report details the results of an extensive, long-term study, named Restoring 

Whitebark Pine Ecosystems (RWPE), where the effects of several ecosystem 

restoration treatments were evaluated on five high-elevation sites in the northern 

Rocky Mountains. These treatments included prescribed fire, thinning, selection 

cuttings, and fuel enhancement cuttings. We evaluated fuel consumption, tree 

mortality, and undergrowth vegetation response measured at three time periods: 

(1) prior to the treatment, (2) 1 year post-treatment(s), and (3) 5 years post-treatment 

(10 year post-treatment measurement is available for one site).

Results show that the treatments provided desirable caching habitat for the seed 

dispersal vector—the Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana)—but the measured 

whitebark pine regeneration rates were quite low due to the:

• nutcrackers reclaiming many cached seeds,

• lack of seed sources in nearby high rust-mortality stands,

• severity of the site (high snow levels, erosive soils, and cold environments),

• lack of plant cover, and

• relatively short time since disturbance.

This guide presents statistical summaries, treatment descriptions, and photographs 

by treatment unit at each time interval. This guide is intended as a reference to 

identify possible impacts of a restoration treatment at a fine scale by matching 

a proposed treatment for a stand to the most similar treatment unit presented in 

this report based on vegetation conditions, fire regime, and geographical area.

Since data summaries are for individual treatment units, there are no analyses of 

differences across treatment units or across research sites.

The Management Guide Series

This report is the first of a series of publications that detail restoration, fuel reduction, 

and silvicultural treatment effects on ecosystems. This guide differs from most other 

reports in that it presents results at the treatment unit level to be more useful to 

land management. Recognizing that ecosystem characteristics are highly variable 

across many scales, any treatment replication may tend to incorporate additional 

biophysical variability that may mask local effects. Therefore, this management guide 

series summarizes collected data and results at the treatment level so that managers 

can match their proposed treatments to the treatments presented in this guide based 

on geographical area, vegetation type, or topographical setting. This guide helps with 

planning and designing ecosystem restoration treatments by informing managers of 

possible effects of treatments on trees, fuels, and undergrowth plants.

ii
How to Use This Management Guide

To use this guide, the manager simply matches the conditions of the treatment and 

site to similar stratifications within this guide. First, match the proposed treatment 

to the fire severity regime (see Stand-Replacement Fires, Mixed-Severity Fires, and 

Non-Lethal Fires) it is supposed to mimic. Next, match the site to the most similar site 

within the chosen fire severity regime. The manager can then reference the effects 

of the treatments detailed in this guide and use these effects to craft cutting and 

prescribed burning prescriptions to achieve management objectives. The following 

is a set of steps that provide an example of how this guide can be used for whitebark 

pine restoration:

Step 1—Select site. Select a site or area for possible ecosystem restoration treatment.

Step 2—Identify the characteristics. Estimate the dominate fire regime (non-lethal 

surface fire, mixed-severity fire, or stand-replacement fire), topographic setting 

(aspect, slope, and elevation), geographic area, habitat type, and dominant 

vegetation.

Step 3—Develop a proposed treatment. Choose a fire regime to emulate and use it 

to craft specifics.

Step 4—Match site and proposed treatment to treatment study unit within this 

guide. Within the chosen fire regime (stand-replacement, mixed-severity, or 

non-lethal—pp. 13, 37, and 97, respectively), select the most similar treatment 

unit described, using geographic area and habitat type as criteria to narrow the 

selection. More than one site and treatment unit may match.

Step 5—Match pre-treatment conditions to treatment unit within this guide. Narrow 

the treatment unit selection from Step 4 by identifying which unit most closely 

resembles the proposed treatment area based on pre-treatment tree populations, 

fuel loadings, and vegetation conditions.

Step 6—Use the treatment unit effects described in this guide to direct management.

Data from post-treatment monitoring help:

• estimate effects of proposed treatment for planning and National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) analysis;

• design cutting and burning prescriptions to meet management objectives;

• prioritize areas for treatments; and

• fine-tune proposed treatments to achieve desired effects.

iii
Contents

Introduction....................................................................................................................1

Methods..........................................................................................................................2

Results...........................................................................................................................10

Stand-Replacement Fires...............................................................................................13

Study Site: Blackbird Mountain, Salmon-Challis National Forest, Central Idaho................... 13

Treatment: High intensity prescribed burn with fuel enhancement (Unit 2B) ......................................................13

Management Planning..............................................................................................................................13

Treatment Description ..............................................................................................................................13

Management Recommendations ..............................................................................................................14

Study Site: Blackbird Mountain, Salmon-Challis National Forest, Central Idaho................... 19

Treatment: High intensity prescribed burn with NO fuel enhancement (Unit 2A) ...............................................19

Management Planning..............................................................................................................................19

Treatment Description ..............................................................................................................................19

Management Recommendations ..............................................................................................................19

Study Site: Coyote Meadows, Bitterroot National Forest, Western-Central Montana........... 25

Treatment: High intensity prescribed burn with fuel enhancement in cutover unit (Unit 2C) ..............................25

Management Planning..............................................................................................................................25

Treatment Description ..............................................................................................................................25

Management Recommendations ..............................................................................................................25

Study Site: Coyote Meadows, Bitterroot National Forest, Western-Central Montana........... 31

Treatment: High intensity prescribed burn with NO fuel enhancement in cutover unit (Unit 2B)........................31

Management Planning..............................................................................................................................31

Treatment Description ..............................................................................................................................31

Management Recommendations ..............................................................................................................31

Mixed-Severity Fires......................................................................................................37

Study Site: Beaver Ridge, Clearwater National Forest, Central Idaho ..................................... 37

Treatment: Nutcracker openings with no burn and no planting (Unit 2A)...........................................................37

Management Planning..............................................................................................................................37

Treatment Description ..............................................................................................................................37

Management Recommendations ..............................................................................................................37

Study Site: Beaver Ridge, Clearwater National Forest, Central Idaho ..................................... 43

Treatment: Moderate intensity prescribed burn with nutcracker openings and no planting (Unit 2B)..................43

Management Planning..............................................................................................................................43

Treatment Description ..............................................................................................................................43

Management Recommendations ..............................................................................................................43

Study Site: Beaver Ridge, Clearwater National Forest, Central Idaho ..................................... 49

Treatment: Nutcracker openings with planting and no burning (Unit 3A) ...........................................................49

Management Planning..............................................................................................................................49

Treatment Description ..............................................................................................................................49

Management Recommendations ..............................................................................................................49

Study Site: Beaver Ridge, Clearwater National Forest, Central Idaho ..................................... 55

Treatment: Moderate intensity prescribed burn with nutcracker openings and planting (Unit 3B).......................55

Management Planning..............................................................................................................................55

Treatment Description ..............................................................................................................................55

Management Recommendations ..............................................................................................................55

Study Site: Beaver Ridge, Clearwater National Forest, Central Idaho ..................................... 61

Treatment: Moderate intensity prescribed burn with fuel enhancement (Unit 5A)...............................................61

Management Planning..............................................................................................................................61

Treatment Description ..............................................................................................................................61

Management Recommendations ..............................................................................................................61

iv
Study Site: Beaver Ridge, Clearwater National Forest, Central Idaho ..................................... 67

Treatment: Moderate intensity prescribed burn with NO fuel enhancement (Unit 5B) ........................................67

Management Planning..............................................................................................................................67

Treatment Description ..............................................................................................................................67

Management Recommendations ..............................................................................................................67

Study Site: Coyote Meadows, Bitterroot National Forest, Western-Central Montana........... 73

Treatment: Moderate intensity prescribed burn with fuel enhancement (Unit 3C)...............................................73

Management Planning..............................................................................................................................73

Treatment Description ..............................................................................................................................73

Management Recommendations ..............................................................................................................73

Study Site: Coyote Meadows, Bitterroot National Forest, Western-Central Montana........... 79

Treatment: Moderate intensity prescribed burn with NO fuel enhancement (Unit 3B) ........................................79

Management Planning..............................................................................................................................79

Treatment Description ..............................................................................................................................79

Management Recommendations ..............................................................................................................79

Study Site: Smith Creek, Bitterroot National Forest, Western-Central Montana ................... 85

Treatment: Commercial Harvest using nutcracker openings followed by moderate intensity prescribed 

burn (Unit 2A)...............................................................................................................................................85

Management Planning..............................................................................................................................85

Treatment Description ..............................................................................................................................85

Management Recommendations ..............................................................................................................86

Study Site: Smith Creek, Bitterroot National Forest, Western Montana.................................. 91

Treatment: Commercial Harvest using nutcracker openings with no prescribed fire (Unit 2B) ............................91

Management Planning..............................................................................................................................91

Treatment Description ..............................................................................................................................91

Management Recommendations ..............................................................................................................91

Non-Lethal Surface Fires...............................................................................................97

Study Site: Bear Overlook, Bitterroot National Forest, Western Montana.............................. 97

Treatment: Low intensity prescribed burn with fuel enhancement (Unit 2A).......................................................97

Management Planning..............................................................................................................................97

Treatment Description ..............................................................................................................................97

Management Recommendations ..............................................................................................................98

Study Site: Bear Overlook, Bitterroot National Forest, Western Montana............................ 103

Treatment: Low intensity prescribed burn with NO fuel enhancement (Unit 1A) ..............................................103

Management Planning............................................................................................................................103

Treatment Description ............................................................................................................................103

Management Recommendations ............................................................................................................103

Study Site: Beaver Ridge, Clearwater National Forest, Central Idaho ................................... 109

Treatment: Low intensity prescribed burn with NO fuel enhancement (Unit 4A) ..............................................109

Management Planning............................................................................................................................109

Treatment Description ............................................................................................................................109

Management Recommendations ............................................................................................................109

Study Site: Beaver Ridge, Clearwater National Forest, Central Idaho ................................... 115

Treatment: Low intensity prescribed burn with fuel enhancement (Unit 4B) ..................................................... 115

Management Planning............................................................................................................................115

Treatment Description ............................................................................................................................115

Management Recommendations ............................................................................................................115

Study Site: Smith Creek, Bitterroot National Forest, Western Montana................................ 121

Treatment: Low intensity prescribed burn with NO fuel enhancement (Unit 1A) ..............................................121

Management Planning............................................................................................................................121

Treatment Description ............................................................................................................................121

Management Recommendations ............................................................................................................122

Discussion...................................................................................................................127

Summary and Conclusions..........................................................................................128

References ..................................................................................................................129

v

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 1

Introduction

Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) forests are declining 

across most of the their range in North America because 

of the combined effects of three factors: (1) several major 

mountain pine beetle epidemics that occurred over the last 

70 years, (2) fire exclusion management policies, and (3) 

extensive infections of the exotic white pine blister rust fungus (Cronartium ribicola) (Keane and Arno 1993; Murray 

and others 1995; Kendall and Keane 2001). The cumulative effects of these three agents are quite diverse across the 

range of whitebark pine, but, in general, the greatest mortality is found in the more mesic parts of its range (northern 

and western) where the upper subalpine forests experience 

a more maritime climate (Keane and Arno 1993). It also appears that changes in high-elevation climate brought about 

by global warming could accelerate the reduction of this important tree species (Blaustein and Dobson 2006). The loss 

of whitebark pine would be serious for upper subalpine ecosystems because it is considered a keystone species across 

most of its range, producing large seeds that are an important 

food source for more than 110 animal species (Forcella and 

Weaver 1980; Hutchins 1994).

This report details the results of an extensive, longterm study, named Restoring Whitebark Pine Ecosystems 

(RWPE), in which the effects of several ecosystem restoration treatments were investigated on five high-elevation sites 

in the northern Rocky Mountains, U.S.A. These treatments 

primarily included prescribed fire and thinning, selection 

cuttings, and fuel enhancement cuttings. We evaluated fuel 

consumption, tree mortality, and undergrowth vegetation 

response quantified from fuel loadings, tree size distributions, and plant species cover that were measured prior to 

the treatment, 1 year post-treatment(s), and 5 years posttreatment(s). This guide presents pictorial, anecdotal, and 

statistical summaries of these measurements and other observations for each treatment unit at each time interval. This 

guide does not provide a statistical analysis of differences 

across treatments or sites because it is presented in Keane 

and others (in press) and it tends to mask local effects due 

to unique biophysical conditions. One must understand the 

unique ecology of this high-mountain ecosystem to get the 

most out of this guide.

Whitebark Pine Ecology

Whitebark pine is a long-lived, seral tree with moderate shade tolerance (Minore 1979). It can live well over 

400 years (one tree is more than 1300 years old), but, in 

the absence of fire, it is eventually replaced on many sites 

by the shade-tolerant subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) and 

the Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) and mountain 

hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) in the mesic parts of its range 

(Arno and Hoff 1990; Keane 2001). Whitebark pine also 

competes with lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) during early 

successional stages in the lower portions of its elevational 

range (Arno and others 1993; McCaughey and Schmidt 

1990; Mattson and Reinhart 1990; Weaver and Dale 1974). 

It can take approximately 50 to 250 years for subalpine fir 

to replace whitebark pine in the overstory, depending on the 

local environment and previous fire history (Arno and Hoff 

1990; Keane 2001).

Whitebark pine forests are found in two types of highmountain settings. Most common are upper subalpine 

sites where whitebark pine is the major seral species that 

is successionally replaced by shade-tolerant fir, spruce, or 

hemlock, depending on geographic region. These sites support upright, closed-canopy forests and occur at the lower 

transition to timberline, just above or overlapping with the 

elevational limit of lodgepole pine (Arno and Weaver 1990; 

Arno and Hoff 1990; Pfister and others 1977). Sites where 

whitebark pine is the only tree species able to successfully 

reproduce and mature (the indicated climax) are found at 

lower timberline on relatively dry, cold slopes where trees 

often occur in elfin forests, clusters, groves, or tree islands 

(Arno 1986; Arno and Weaver 1990; McCaughey and 

Schmidt 1990; Steele and others 1983). Subalpine fir can occur on these sites, but as scattered individuals with truncated 

growth forms (Arno and Hoff 1990; Arno and Weaver 1990; 

Cooper and others 1991; Pfister and others 1977). Whitebark 

pine can also exist as krummholz on alpine sites (Arno and 

Hoff 1990; Tomback 1989) and as a minor seral in lower 

subalpine sites (Cooper and others 1991; Pfister and others 

1977), though these sites were not included in this study.

Whitebark pine comprises about 10 to 15 percent of the 

forested landscape in the upper subalpine zone of the northern Rocky Mountains (Arno and Hoff 1990; Tomback and 

others 2001). Although it has limited use as a commercial 

timber species because of its diminutive stature, gnarled 

growth form, and remote setting, it produces seeds that 

are prized for food by many wildlife species, including the 

threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) (Mattson 

and others 1991), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) 

(Ferner 1974), and, most importantly, the Clark’s nutcracker 

(Nucifraga columbiana) (Tomback 1989). The nutcracker 

plays a critical role in the whitebark pine regeneration process in that it is essentially the only vector for dispersing 

the heavy, wingless seed (Lorenz and others 2008; Tomback 

1989; Tomback 1998). Whitebark pine also protects snowpack in high-elevation watersheds and delays snowmelt, 

providing high quality water to valleys below into the summer (Arno and Hoff 1990; Hann 1990; Tomback and others 

2001).

Three types of fires define the diverse array of fire regimes 

found in whitebark pine forests (Arno and Hoff 1990; Morgan 

and others 1994). Some high, dry whitebark pine stands experience non-lethal surface fires (underburns) that kill the 

smallest trees and the most susceptible large trees because of 

sparse fuel loadings. These non-lethal surface fires are mostly 

confined to dry ridgetop settings and areas in the southern 

parts of the species range in the Rocky Mountains and burn 

only a small portion of existing whitebark pine forests (less 

than 10 percent) (Morgan and others 1994; Tomback and 
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.

others 2001). Most of these areas have low blister rust infection rates and are within the historical fire rotation because 

of the inhospitable conditions for the rust infection and the 

long fire-return intervals (80 to 300+ years). The more common, mixed-severity fire regime is characterized by fires of 

different severities in space and time, which creates complex patterns of tree survival and mortality on the landscape. 

Mixed-severity fires can occur at 60- to 300-year intervals 

(Arno and Hoff 1990; Keane and others 1994; Morgan and 

others 1994). Individual fires can be non-lethal surface fires 

with differential mortality, stand-replacement fires, or, most 

often, fires that contain elements of both (Morgan and others 

1994). Severities increase if fires enter areas with high fuel 

loads or if fires enter into tree crowns due to increasing winds 

and ladder fuels, thereby creating patches of high fire mortality (Lasko 1990). Burned patches are often 1 to 125 acres (.1 

to 50 ha) in size, depending on topography and fuels, and 

these openings provide important nutcracker caching habitat 

(Norment 1991; Tomback and others 1990). Many whitebark 

pine forests in northwestern Montana, northern Idaho, and 

the Cascades originated from large, stand-replacement fires 

that occurred at long intervals (greater than 250 years) (Arno 

1986; Keane and others 1994; Morgan and others 1994). 

Stand-replacement fires also occurred within mixed-severity 

fire regimes, but as infrequent events. These fires were usually wind-driven and often originated in lower, forested stands 

(Murray and others 1998).

Whitebark pine benefits from wildland fire because it is 

more capable of surviving and regenerating after fire than 

its associated shade-tolerant trees because it has somewhat thicker bark, thinner crowns, and deeper roots (Arno 

and Hoff 1990). It readily recolonizes after large, stand‐

replacement burns because nutcrackers transport its seeds 

great distances. Nutcrackers can disperse whitebark pine 

seeds up to 100 times farther (over 10 km) than wind can 

disperse subalpine fir and spruce seeds (McCaughey and 

others 1985; Tomback and others 1990; Tomback and others 1993). Essentially all whitebark pine regeneration comes 

from unclaimed nutcracker caches, where seeds eventually 

germinate and grow into seedlings (Keane and others 1990). 

Nutcrackers prefer open sites with many visual cues for seed 

caching, which are most often found in burned stands after 

a mixed or stand-replacement fire (McCaughey and Weaver 

1990; Sund and others 1991; Tomback 1989; Tomback and 

others 1990; Tomback 1998). It is on these open sites that 

whitebark pine can successfully grow and mature to healthy 

cone-producing trees in the absence of competition.

Methods

Study Description

The RWPE study was started in 1993 to explore the use of 

prescribed fire, mechanical cuttings, and planting treatments 

to restore whitebark pine forests by enhancing regeneration 

success and prolonging whitebark pine cone production 

(Keane and Arno 1996). The need for restoration was first 

identified by Arno (1986) and later emphasized during a comprehensive symposium on whitebark pine held in Bozeman, 

Montana (Schmidt and MacDonald 1990). We know of no 

other formal restoration studies in this declining ecosystem.

The primary assumption in the RWPE study is that whitebark pine ecosystems can be restored from the damaging 

effects of blister rust, mountain pine beetles, and fire exclusion by mimicking historical fire regimes in stands to increase 

regeneration potential and to improve the vigor of surviving 

whitebark pine to promote future cone crops (Hoff and others 

2001). We assume that the living, cone-producing whitebark 

pine at or near the restoration sites possess some degree of 

rust resistance because they have already survived decades of 

rust infection (Keane and Arno 1996). These apparently rustresistant whitebark pine trees would provide the seed for the 

nutcrackers to plant in the treated units, and we assume this 

subsequent regeneration will be somewhat resistant to the 

rust (Hoff and others 2001). If surrounding whitebark pine 

seed sources are low, then planting seedlings grown from 

seed collected in high rust-mortality stands should be the primary vehicle to enhance the conservation of the species.

Study Sites

We implemented the RWPE study on five sites in the 

northern Rocky Mountains (fig. 1). Three sites are on the 

Bitterroot National Forest (two on the Stevensville Ranger 

District and one on the Darby Ranger District), one is on the 

Salmon-Challis National Forest, and the largest study site is 

on the Clearwater National Forest (table 1). Whitebark pine 

is declining on all sites except for the Blackbird Mountain 

site on the Salmon-Challis National Forest where there 

were few rust infections and no observed mortality. These 

sites were selected because they were close to a road or trail 

and the Ranger Districts supported our planned treatments. 

All sites are in the ABLA/LUHI habitat type with most in 

the VASC phase, but some are in the MEFE phase (Pfister 

and others 1977) (table 1). Some of the sites have minor elements of the PIAL-ABLA and ABLA-PIAL habitat types.

We divided each site into treatments and each treatment 

was further divided into treatment units. The treatment is 

described by the major treatment type implemented within 

the area while the treatment unit describes the secondary 

or minor treatment implemented within the same area (see 

Guide Organization in the Results section for a complete 

description of each treatment). For example, the treatment 

might be a prescribed non-lethal surface fire and the two 

treatment units might be with and without fuel enhancement 

cuttings, respectively. We tried to replicate treatment units 

within a site to satisfy requirements of a comprehensive 

analysis of variance, but we found it was nearly impossible 

due to the limited extent of the sites (most were confined 

by ridgetop settings) and the diversity of biophysical characteristics within the site (for example, aspect, slope, water 

drainage, and species composition). We also attempted to 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 3

make each site its own replicate, but replication of treatments across sites is difficult because of the different stand 

conditions within the five sites in this study. As a result, 

we took a “demonstration” approach to designing this study 

in which we implemented feasible, operational restoration 

treatments crafted to restore whitebark pine across large areas, and then designed treatment sampling schemes around 

the treated area to investigate the treatment effects. The 

Table 1. Description of the five sites included in the Restoring Whitebark Pine Ecosystems study.

Study Site Smith Creek Bear Overlook Coyote Meadows Blackbird Mountain Beaver Ridge

National Forest Bitterroot Bitterroot Bitterroot Salmon Clearwater

Elevation 7100-7600 7000-7600 7900-8200 8400-8600 6800-7600

(ft above MSL)

Aspect Southeast Southeast Northwest South South

Habitat type1 ABLA/LUHI ABLA/LUHI ABLA/LUHI ABLA/LUHI ABLA/LUHI

ABLA/MEFE

Cover type2 WP/LP WP/LP WP/SF WP/SF WP/LP

Rust infection (%) 85 70 90 <1 51

Rust mortality (%) 95 93 91 <1 88

Number of 3 2 6 2 8

treatment units3

Pre-treatment 1995 1996 1993 1997 1997

measurement year

Year of prescribed 1996 1999 2000 1999 1999, 2000, 2002

burns

1

 Habitat type is taken from Pfister and others (1977). ABLA is Abies lasiocarpa, LUHI is Luzula hitchcockii, and MEFE is 

Menziesia ferruginea. 2

 Cover type acronyms are WP-whitebark pine, SF-subalpine fir, and LP-lodgepole pine.

3

 Number of treatment units does NOT include control units.

Figure 1. Study sites of the 

Restoring Whitebark Pine 

Ecosystems study.

design included a control and at least one treatment with 

two treatment units.

Smith Creek study site. The Smith Creek site was the 

first to be treated. It was composed of three treatment units 

(low intensity prescribed fire and nutcracker openings with 

and without prescribed burning) and a control (1A, 2A, and 

2B, respectively, in fig. 2a). This study site was sandwiched 

between the 1988 Glen Lake burn and a 1967 clearcut of 
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.

Figure 2. Treatment unit design for each site in this study: (a) Smith Creek, (b) Bear Overlook, (c) Blackbird Mountain, 

(d) Coyote Meadows, and (e) Beaver Ridge. See tables 1 and 3 for more information about these sites.

(b) (a)
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 5

about 80 acres. Prior to treatment, the overstory consisted 

of 200- to 400-year-old overstory whitebark pine and lodgepole pine, and some younger subalpine fir and scattered large 

Engelmann spruce (table 1). The understory was mostly composed of seedling and sapling subalpine fir with occasional 

stagnated whitebark pine saplings. Grouse whortleberry 

(Vaccinium scoparium) and beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax) 

were the primary plant species dominating the undergrowth. 

At an elevation around 7000 ft above mean sea level (MSL), 

this site faced mostly southeast with slopes ranging from 10 

to 50 percent. A large dozer line created during the 1988 Glen 

Lake fire ran up the northern boundary of the treatment areas 

(between the control and treatment areas). Small seeps that 

form the headwaters of Smith Creek delineate the boundaries 

of the southern portion of the study area.

Bear Overlook study site. This site was similar in stand 

structure and composition to the Smith Creek site. Large, old 

whitebark pine, subalpine fir, and scattered Engelmann spruce 

comprised the overstory, and the understory was dominated 

by subalpine fir seedlings and saplings. This site included 

about 0.3 miles of one of the most popular hiking trails and 

scenic overlooks on the Bitterroot National Forest (fig. 2b). 

A carpet of grouse whortleberry was the primary understory 

with scattered patches of mountain heath (Phyllodoce emperitriforus), especially in the burn, no fuel enhancement unit 

(2A). The treatment area was more than 200 acres in size, 

but we installed plots only within the lower 20 acres of the 

study site, which is approximately 7200 ft MSL on flat slopes 

(<10 percent) that face southeast. Only two treatments were 

implemented on this site: moderate intensity prescribed burning treatments with and without fuel enhancement (2A, 1A) 

and a control (3A). We established a third treatment unit that 

was supposed to be a silvicultural cutting with no burn treatment, but the Ranger District was unable to implement the 

treatment due to lack of funds.

Blackbird Mountain study site. This site had two high 

intensity prescribed burning treatments (with and without 

fuel enhancement) and a control (2A, 2B, 1A, respectively) 

(table 1, fig. 2c). It was the only study site with no detectable 

blister rust infections on any of the sampled whitebark pine 

trees, although we did find one blister rust canker on a tree 

just above the study area. This site is at 9000 ft elevation, and 

faces mostly southwest with slopes from 10 to 20 percent. 

The site was in the late seral stages of development—it was 

primarily composed of old (200- to 300-year-old) whitebark 

pine in the overstory with significant amounts of younger 

subalpine fir in patches around senescing and dying whitebark pine. Sapling and seedling subalpine fir dominated the 

understory but the distribution was very patchy. The treated 

area was adjacent to a climax whitebark pine site—an open 

stand dominated by grasses and sedges in the understory. The 

Thunder Mountain Trail, created circa 1902, ran through the 

treatment area and there was also a major trail system that 

supported the lookout on Blackbird Mountain during the 

1940s and 1950s. Because of these archeological relics, we 

had to protect those blazed whitebark pine trees and snags 

with fire shelters.

Coyote Meadows study site. This study site was composed of a mature stand of 300+ year-old whitebark pine 

surrounded by a 1963 clearcut unit. We designed treatments 

of low intensity prescribed fire with and without fuel enhancement in the mature stand (3B and 3C), and treatments 

in the cutting unit were designed to have high intensity prescribed fire with and without fuel enhancement (2B, 2C, and 

1B) (fig. 2d). Fire scars sampled onsite revealed a rich history of fire, with burns in 1933, 1780, and approximately 

1590. This was the first site in the RWPE study—plots were 

installed in the summer of 1993 and the fuel enhancement 

treatment was implemented in the fall of that year. Most of 

the site was burned in a high intensity wildfire during the 

Bitterroot Fires of 2000 before the prescribed burn could be 

implemented. The site has a westerly aspect with variable 

slopes ranging from 10 to 30 percent on the cutover units 

and greater than 30 percent in the old growth unit. The top 

of the unit is at approximately 8000 ft MSL and it forms the 

western boundary of a proposed wilderness area. There is a 

popular trail on the ridge that is the main route for climbing Kent Peak in the Sapphire Mountain Range. Ample seed 

sources were available along a high-elevation ridge northeast 

of the study site prior to the 2000 wildfires. Vegetation was 

highly variable across the units in this area. Most of the flat 

areas are poorly drained and contain seeps and swales with 

mesic, high-elevation vegetation, such as Juncus drumundii

and Dechampsia ceosnoposium. Sites that are well drained 

usually contain common vegetation assemblages found in 

this ABLA/LUHI, VASC habitat type, such as grouse whortleberry, beargrass, and woodrush (Luzula hitchcockii). The 

overstory contained old, dying whitebark pine mixed with a 

younger, thrifty element of subalpine fir. The understory consisted mostly of subalpine fir.

Beaver Ridge study site. This area is an extensive 

ridgetop system just northwest of the Selway Bitterroot 

Wilderness Area where there is an isolated population of 

rust-infected, dying whitebark pine along about 2 to 3 miles 

of ridge above 6800 ft elevation MSL. There is extensive 

whitebark pine mortality along most of this ridge caused by 

recent blister rust infections, the 1930 mountain pine beetle 

epidemic, and the historic fires (table 1). The site has many 

100+ year-old snags created by the 1910 and 1889 wildfires 

in addition to the many living trees with fire scars from these 

events. Historical fire regimes were mostly mixed-severity 

with occasional stand-replacement fires. Beaver Ridge is 

experiencing a pulse of subalpine fir regeneration and rapid 

growth due to the high whitebark pine mortality and favorable climate conditions. The 660-acre study site is mostly 

south-facing with slopes ranging from 10 to 50 percent on 

decomposed granitic soils (mostly gneiss and schist). The 

entire study area is one habitat type (ABLA/LUHI, VASC; 

table 1) with the undergrowth dominated by beargrass and 

grouse whortleberry and an overstory consisting of dying 

whitebark pine, encroaching subalpine fir, and scattered large 

Engelmann spruce. There are also large patches originating 

from the 1910 fire that are dominated by lodgepole pine, especially on the western end of the ridge. The Beaver Ridge 
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.

site had the most complex treatment design of all five sites 

(fig. 2e). We included low intensity prescribed fire treatments 

with and without fuel enhancement (4A and 4B, respectively), high intensity prescribed fire with and without fuel 

enhancement (5A and 5B, respectively), nutcracker openings 

with and without prescribed burning and with and without 

pile burning (2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B, respectively) (fig. 2e).

Sampling Methods

We installed 10 plots within each treatment unit to describe changes in ecological conditions within each unit. 

We systematically located these plots across the treatment 

units based on fixed distances and compass bearings. We 

could not randomly establish the plots because of the highly 

variable treatment unit shapes, diverse fuel conditions, and 

concerns for relocating plots, so we established the plots using a systematic design with a random start. All plots were 

mapped using compass bearings and distances from benchmarks (flagged or blazed trees), and the UTM coordinates 

and zone were recorded for each plot using a GPS.

Plots were circular in shape and 0.1 acre (0.04 ha) in 

size, and they were permanently located using 3-ft (1-m) 

rebar driven 2 ft (0.7 m) into the ground (fig. 3). A metal 

tag was wired to the rebar identifying the treatment unit and 

plot number. All trees greater than 4.5 inches (12 cm) DBH 

(Diameter Breast Height) were tagged using numbered aluminum (no-burn units only) or stainless steel casket (burn 

units) tags nailed in the center of the tree bole at DBH facing 

plot center. We measured species, DBH, tree height, height 

to crown base, and health (live, sick, dying, or dead) for each 

tree and then recorded the percent crown volume killed by 

blister rust for all whitebark pine trees. The same characteristics were measured for all live trees less than 4.5 inches 

DBH and higher than 4.5 ft tall (1.37 m) with DBH estimated 

to 1 inch (2.5 cm) diameter classes. Tree seedlings (trees less 

than 4.5 ft tall) were counted by 1-ft (0.3-m) height classes 

on a 1/300 ac circular plot in the middle of the 1/10 acre plot 

using the same plot center.

Surface fuels were measured on two 50-ft (15.2-m) transects that originated at the plot center rebar and extended 

in opposite directions (fig. 3). The two transects (A and B) 

were oriented north and south for plots 1, 4, 7, and 10; at 

the azimuths 60 and 240 degrees for plots 2, 5, and 8; azimuths 120 and 300 degrees for plots 3, 6, and 9 within a unit 

(Brown 1974). The end of the transects (50 ft mark) was 

permanently established using a 10-inch nail driven into the 

ground so only the nail head was visible. Another 10-inch 

nail was driven into the ground at 37.2 ft to aid in transect 

relocation and to identify the outside of the macroplot. We 

tied wire flags and orange flagging around the nails to help 

in relocation. Fine woody fuels (1 hr = less than 0.25 inches 

diameter and 10 hr = 0.25 to 1.0 inch diameter) intersects 

were counted along the first 6 ft (2 meters) of the A and B 

transects; small branchwood (100 hr = 1 to 3 inches diameter) intersects were counted along the first 10 ft (3 meters); 

and log (1000 hr = greater than 3 inches or 7.6 cm diameter) diameters and decay classes were measured for any 

log that intersected the entire 50 ft (15.2 meters). Duff and 

litter depths were measured at the zero, 37.2-ft, and 50-ft 

Figure 3. Diagram 

of the sampling 

design for plots 

used in the study. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 7

distances along each of the two transects. Log diameters 

were always measured in order from the zero end of the tape 

(plot center) to the 50 ft mark so we could track any newly 

fallen log material.

We visually estimated the vertically projected foliar cover of each vascular plant species within each of four 10.8-ft2

(1-m2

 or a frame 1.41 m by 0.71 m) microplots at each 

plot (fig. 3) using 12 cover classes defined by the following ranges in percent: less than 1, 1 to 5, 5 to 15, 15 to 25, 

and up to 95 to 100 (see FIREMON for details in Lutes and 

others 2006). We also recorded the heights and two crown 

widths of all shrubs taller than 3.3 ft (1 m). Ground cover for 

rock, bare soil, wood, duff/litter, and moss was also recorded 

for each microplot using the same cover classes (Lutes and 

others 2006). Microplots were permanently established by 

driving 8-inch stainless steel nails into the ground until only 

the nail head was visible at the microplot corners shown in 

fig. 3. We painted the nail heads orange and tied flagging 

around the nails to aid in relocation. Nails were relocated 

during future measurements using a metal detector and reflagged after each measurement.

We took the tree, fuel, and plant species measurements 

described above prior to the treatment (pre-treatment), 1 year 

post-treatment, and 5 years post-treatment. Some units received two or more treatments (cutting and prescribed burn, 

for example) and we measured all characteristics detailed 

above after each treatment was implemented. This report 

only summarizes the measurements after the last treatment 

was implemented. We also estimated the percent of the plot 

burned by the prescribed fire and documented any other disturbances observed at the plot (mountain pine beetles, and 

Ips spp. beetles, for example). We took photographs of the 

plot looking north and east from plot center at each of the 

measurement times. Lastly, we indirectly measured the leaf 

area index (LAI) on each plot using the LiCor LAI-2000 instrument (Welles and Norman 1991).

Fuel moisture samples were collected for each fuel component (1, 10, 100, and 1000 hr; shrub; and herbaceous) at 

the start of the prescribed burn just outside each plot. We 

sampled each fine downed woody fuel size class (1, 10, and 

100 hr) by collecting at least 10 twigs about 4 inches long on 

each plot and storing them in tightly sealed sampling bottles. 

Live shrub (mostly grouse whortleberry) and live herbaceous 

(mostly beargrass and elk sedge (Carex geyeri)) fuels were 

cut and stored in sealable plastic bags. Logs (1000 hr) were 

sampled by cutting a 2-inch thick “cookie,” or cross-section, 

from the center of two to three logs per plot with a chainsaw 

and storing them in large, plastic sealable bags. All samples 

were labeled with plot number, date, sample type, and study 

site. Samples were placed in burlap bags, transported back to 

the laboratory in a cooler, then immediately weighed to the 

nearest 0.01 gram. After weighing, the samples were placed 

into aluminum pie pans and dried for 48 to 72 hrs at 80 o

C, 

then weighed again to determine moisture content.

Treatment Summary

Three types of treatments were investigated in this study 

(table 2). The primary treatment investigated was prescribed 

fire and it was implemented at three intensity levels to mimic 

the three types of fire severity. A high intensity prescribed 

fire was used to mimic stand-replacement fire where more 

than 90 percent of the overstory is killed by fire (fig. 4c), 

while the moderate intensity prescribed fire simulated effects from a mixed-severity fire (fig. 4b). A mixed-severity 

fire has patches of stand-replacement fire mixed with varying 

severities of non-lethal surface fires (10 to 90 percent overstory mortality). The non-lethal surface fire was emulated 

with a low intensity prescribed fire (fig. 4a). Prescribed fire 

intensity levels were achieved through the combination of 

desired wind speed, fuel moisture, and fuel loadings. None 

of the National Forest fire staff involved in this study had 

extensive experience in burning high-elevation ecosystems, 

so most were overly cautious in implementing the burn. 

Consequently, the implementation of prescribed burns was 

at the lower end of the intensity level. Most prescribed burns 

Table 2. General summary of treatments and their combinations used in the study.

Prescribed fire

Cutting treatments treatments Slash treatments Planting treatments

None None None None

Nutcracker Openings—cut Low intensity—light fire to Piled—slash was collected Planted—areas planted with

small 0.5-5 acre clearcuts consume fuels and kill by hand and put into piles rust-resistant whitebark pine

leaving all healthy understory competition

whitebark pine trees

Slashing—cut subalpine fir Moderate intensity— Fuel enhancement—slash

and Engelmann spruce to moderate fire to consume was scattered by hand

enhance fuel bed slash and kill subalpine fir making fuelbed more

regeneration contiguous

Thinning—cut subalpine fir High intensity—A fire to kill

and Engelmann spruce to more than 90% of all trees

remove competition
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.

Figure 4. Three types of prescribed fire implemented in this study: (a) stand-replacement fire emulated using a high intensity 

prescribed fire, (b) mixed-severity fire mimicked by a moderate intensity prescribed fire, and (c) non-lethal surface fire 

replicated by a low intensity prescribed fire.

(c) Non-lethal surface fire (b) Mixed-severity fires

(a) Stand-replacement fire
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 9

were ignited using strip head fires about 10 to 20 ft wide, 

but a heli-torch was used on two sites to simulate standreplacement fire, and a terra-torch (flame thrower mounted 

on a truck) was used at the Beaver Ridge site to initiate standreplacement fire (fig. 5).

Tree cuttings were implemented at various intensities and 

sizes to achieve several objectives. We created cutting treatments called nutcracker openings where all trees except for 

whitebark pine trees were cut within near-circular areas of 

1 to 5 acres to entice the nutcrackers to cache seeds there 

(fig. 6). Openings were designed to mimic the effects of 

patchy mixed-severity burns and some stand-replacement 

burns (fig. 4c). Norment (1991) found that nutcrackers were 

most abundant in 1- to 40-acre (0.1- to 15-ha) disturbed or 

non-forest patches. We also designed thinning treatments to 

emulate the effect of non-lethal surface fires where all subalpine fir and spruce trees below a threshold diameter were 

Figure 5. Terra-torch used to 

ignite the high intensity, 

stand-replacement 

prescribed fire at the 

Beaver Ridge study site.

cut. Selection cuttings were also implemented where all fir 

and spruce trees greater than a threshold diameter (5 inches 

or 13 cm in most cases) were cut to mimic effects of passive 

crown fires in mixed-severity fire regimes. Lastly, we used 

a cutting treatment called fuel enhancement cuttings where 

small to large subalpine fir and spruce trees were cut and positioned within the treatment unit to enhance the fuelbed so 

prescribed fire could visit a greater portion of the stand to 

increase burn coverage (fig. 7). Fuel enhancement cuttings 

also widened the short burning window in high-elevation environments by providing abundant dry fine fuels during the 

late summer and early fall.

Some additional actions were implemented on treatment 

units in this study after the cutting or burning treatments. We 

piled and burned the slash at one Beaver Ridge treatment unit. 

We also planted whitebark pine trees on a couple of sites, but 

planting was not included as a major factor in this report.

Figure 6. Nutcracker 

openings at the 

Beaver Ridge 

study site.
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.

Figure 7. Fuel enhancement cutting at the Beaver Ridge study 

site.

Analysis Methods

The ten plots within each treatment unit were used for observations in the tree mortality calculations. We used the 40 

microplots (four at each plot) within each treatment unit as 

observations in the calculation of plant response in terms of 

canopy cover. Loading estimates for each of the 20 transects 

(two at each plot) were used as observations to detect differences in woody fuels, and 60 estimates of duff and litter depth 

(three measurements per transect) were used to detect differences in duff and litter loading. Pictures of selected plots are 

included for visual illustration of treatment effects. Within 

each treatment unit, we statistically compared pre-treatment 

conditions against each post-treatment condition (1, 5, and 10 

years post-treatment) using a standard t-test. No comparisons 

were made among treatments or among sites.

Tree mortality was computed as a percent killed by species 

for three size classes: (1) seedlings (less than 4.5 ft in height), 

(2) saplings (less than 4.5 inches DBH), and (3) overstory 

(greater than 4.5 inches DBH). We also included an analysis 

of snags, which are trees greater than 4.5 inches DBH, that 

were dead at the time of measurement. Fuel loadings were 

computed from the planar intercept counts using the computations described by Brown (1974). Plant volume estimates 

were calculated by multiplying the proportion canopy cover 

(cover divided by 100 percent) by the area of the microplots 

(10.8 ft2

 or 1 m2) and the plant height.

Results

Guide Organization

This section is the heart of the Management Guide 

because it contains a comprehensive summary of the measured effects of the treatment(s) for each treatment unit in 

the study across all sites (see table 3 for treatment summary). Each treatment unit summary has a static format that 

includes photographs, treatment summaries, and bar charts; 

tabular results that are presented in approximately the same 

position for each treatment unit. When possible, the photographs were taken in the same direction for the same plot for 

each of the re-measurement intervals, but some photographs 

were not always in the same direction because of trees, rain, 

snow, and other unforeseen problems (a fire at the Missoula 

Fire Sciences Laboratory destroyed slides taken for some 

of the study sites). Discussions of treatment details for each 

treatment unit may be somewhat redundant because many 

treatments were repeated across the sites. Tabular summaries of the tree, fuel, and plant species measurements 

are included for each of the three intervals. Canopy cover 

changes for only the ten most common vascular plant species are presented because most species occurred at less 

than trace levels and there were only 5 to 15 species common on all microplots (greater than 5 percent cover) in any 

treatment unit. Lastly, a brief discussion of study findings 

and management recommendations for each treatment unit 

is presented.

The treatment unit description section is organized by 

wildland fire regimes. Three fire severity types—standreplacement fires, mixed-severity fires, and non-lethal surface fires—are discussed in this guide and are referenced 

by low, moderate and high intensity prescribed burns, respectively. Within each fire regime, this guide is organized 

by geographical area and treatment type. Each treatment 

type refers to a treatment unit from a site in this study. This 

management guide is organized in this fashion so that managers can match conditions within a proposed treatment site 

(prescribed fire intensity, geographical area, pre-treatment 

conditions, and habitat type) to a treatment unit in this study 

to approximate potential effects of the proposed treatment.

Graphical and tabular data are presented in a consistent 

manner for each treatment unit. Each summary consists of 

five sections with each page designed to illustrate the changes that occurred over time as a result of the treatment. The 

first page describes the treatment unit and the treatment(s) 

implemented at that unit. The second page shows photos taken in the field at the three measurement times (pre-treatment, 

1 year, and 5 years post-treatment). The third page presents 

graphs of tree data (tree density by species and whitebark 

pine mortality). The fourth page presents graphs describing 

the fuelbed characteristics and undergrowth composition 

(surface fuel loads, ground cover and understory vegetation 

cover). The fifth page presents a table that summarizes the 

data presented in the graphs. All pages except the last are 

organized into three rows, labeled at the left margin. Row 

1 is labeled “PRE” and represents conditions prior to the 

treatment, while “POST-1” and “POST-5” represent rows 

summarizing data corresponding to conditions after the 

treatment at 1 year and 5 years, respectively. These margin 

labels and the header label at the top of the page are color 

coded by fire severity class for convenience. Red represents 

stand-replacement fires (high intensity prescribed burns), orange signifies mixed-severity (moderate intensity prescribed 

burns), and yellow represents non-lethal surface fires emulated by low intensity prescribed burns.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 11

The photo page shows treatment effects and how conditions changed over the course of the study. Photos were 

selected from all ten plots in the treatment unit and thus are 

not always repeated views of the same locations over time. 

Repeated photo-points were not always available for three 

reasons:

• some photos were burned in a 2004 fire at the Missoula 

Fire Sciences Laboratory;

• some photos were of poor quality;

• photos were not taken at exactly the right photo-point and 

in the right direction; and

• photos failed to provide an adequate photo sequence 

because trees, rocks, or logs obstructed the view.

However, we did use photos from one plot in the treatment unit when adequate pictures were available for all three 

time periods. We also included two views of the treatment 

unit for each time period.

Table 3. Detailed summary of the treatments and combinations applied to each treatment unit and site. The second column 

is the planned treatment and the third column details its final implementation. Some units were not burned at the planned 

fire severity.

Treatment

unit Description Treatment details and implementation

Smith Creek

1A Underburn with no fuel enhancement Low intensity prescribed burn

2A Nutcracker opening and burn Moderate intensity broadcast burn small clearcuts (0.1-0.2 acre) 

with whitebark pine retention

2B Nutcracker opening without burn Small clearcuts (0.1-0.2 acre) with whitebark pine retention

3A Control for entire study site No treatment

4A Thin existing 1965 clearcut Not included in this study

Bear Overlook

1A Underburn only Low intensity prescribed burn

2A Underburn with fuel enhancement Low intensity prescribed burn with trees cut to enhance fuelbed

3A Control for entire study site No treatment

Coyote Meadows

1A Control for 1B No treatment

1B Burn with no fuel enhancement Low intensity wildfire burn in 1963 clearcut

2A Control for 2B and 2C No treatment

2B Burn with fuel enhancement High intensity wildfire burn in 1963 clearcut with saplings cut to 

enhance fuelbed

2C Burn with no fuel enhancement High intensity wildfire burn in 1963 clearcut 

3A Control for 3B and 3C No treatment

3B Burn with no fuel enhancement Low intensity wildfire burn in mature stand

3C Burn with fuel enhancement Low intensity wildfire burn with saplings cut to enhance fuelbed

Blackbird Mountain

1A Control for entire study site No treatment

2A Burn with no fuel enhancement High intensity prescribed burn

2B Burn with fuel enhancement High intensity prescribed burn with fuel enhancement

Beaver Ridge

1A Control for entire study site No treatment

2A Nutcracker opening with no burn Small clearcuts (1-2 acre) with whitebark pine retention

2B Nutcracker opening with burn Moderate intensity broadcast burn small clearcuts (1-2 acres) with 

whitebark pine retention nutcracker opening with burn

3A Nutcracker opening with no burn and Same as 2A but planted with WP seedlings

with planting

3B Nutcracker opening with burn and Same as 2B but planted with WP seedlings

planting

4A Underburn with no fuel enhancement Low intensity prescribed burn

4B Underburn with fuel enhancement Low intensity prescribed burn with trees cut to enhance the fuelbed

5A Stand-replacement fire with no fuel Moderate intensity prescribed burn

enhancement

5B Stand-replacement fire with fuel Moderate intensity prescribed burn with trees cut to make 

enhancement fuelbed contiguous
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.

The tree data page (second section) has two figures for 

each point in time. The left figure contains bar graphs depicting tree density in trees per acre, stratified by the following 

species:

• WP = Whitebark pine (red), and

• SF = Subalpine fir (green),

and by the following size classes:

• SEED = trees less than 4.5 ft tall,

• SAP = trees greater than 4.5 ft tall and less than 4.5 inches 

DBH, and

• OVST= overstory trees with greater than 4.5 inches DBH.

The right figures contain bar graphs depicting whitebark 

pine mortality, in percent, stratified by size class. Seedling 

summaries are light green in color, sapling results are forest 

green, and overstory results are dark green.

The fuelbed composition section (section 3) has three figures for each point in time. The figures to the left consist of 

bar graphs depicting surface fuel loadings for litter, fine, and 

coarse woody dead fuels. Litter depth (yellow) is measured 

in inches and includes both litter and duff layers. The fine 

woody fuels (1 and 10 hr, 0 to 1 inch diameter) and small 

branchwood (100 hr, 1 to 3 inches diameter) downed dead 

woody fuels are measured in tons per acre and are noted in 

bright (1 hr) to dark red (100 hr). Surface fuel loads of logs 

Table 4. The ten vascular plant species presented in the fourth section of 

the treatment unit summaries.

	 	 Scientific name

Abbreviation Common name Color

VASC Vaccinum scoparium

Grouse whortleberry Charcoal

VAGL Vaccinum globulare

Blue Huckleberry Brown

PHEM Phyllodoce emperitriforus

Mountain heath Brick red

MEFE Menziesia ferruginea

Skunk bush Red

XETE Xerophyllum tenax

Beargrass Dark green

CAGE Carex geyerii

Elk sedge Forest green

CARO Carex rossii

Sedge Bright green

CARU Calamagrostis rubescens

Pinegrass Dark blue

CACO Carex concinnoides

Sedge Navy blue

LUHI Luzula hitchcockii

Woodrush Bright blue

(1000 hr, greater than 3 inches diameter) are measured in 

tons per acre and are noted in brick red. Each of the three bar 

graphs has its own scale because the higher values for the 

heavy fuels tend to overwhelm the data range of the smaller 

fuels.

The center figure on the fuelbed composition page shows 

a single bar graph describing the ground cover (percent) for 

five different components: woody material (brown), rock 

(gray), soil (yellow), duff and litter (olive green), and moss 

(bright green). The right figure has two bar graphs describing the understory vegetation by vegetation cover (percent). 

The tables contain data for the 10 most common species 

found. To facilitate quick visual comparison between different points in time, the species are listed in the same order in 

all figures and each species has a unique color described in 

table 4.

The last section presents a tabular statistical summary 

of the data collected for each treatment unit for each of the 

time periods. Two additional tree species are includced: 

Engelmann spruce (ES) and Lodgepole pine (LP). The 

number in parentheses after each entry indicates the percent 

increase or decrease from the pre-treatment condition for all 

time periods. These percents are bold if they are statistically 

significant from the pre-treatment condition (p < 0.05) using 

the two-tailed t-test. Graphs will appear empty if data are 

not available.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 13

Stand-Replacement Fires

Study Site: Blackbird Mountain, Salmon-Challis National 

Forest, Central Idaho

Treatment: High intensity prescribed burn with fuel enhancement (Unit 2B)

Management Planning: This treatment was proposed in March of 1997 with a burn plan written in 

the summer of 1997 and the NEPA work done under a categorical exclusion for 

research in the winter of 1997 and 1998. Public comment was solicited during 

public meetings held during the fall of 1997 and winter of 1998.

Treatment Description: We used a fuel enhancement tree cutting treatment to increase loading and 

contagion of fuels on the treatment unit to foster an extensive, high intensity burn. 

The Cobalt Ranger District assigned a timber saw crew to cut subalpine fir trees 

and directionally fell them so the tree biomass would increase the amount and 

distribution of fuels on the forest floor. There were no diameter or height cutting 

guidelines; crews were directed to cut trees that would improve the burning of the 

fuelbed. This treatment was accomplished in summer of 1998 and the slash was 

allowed to cure for more than 1 year.

A high intensity prescribed burn was implemented on September 11, 1999, 

to mimic stand-replacement fires that were historically common. Fire lines surrounding the burn were widened using strip head fires that were 1 to 10 ft in 

width. A heli-torch was then used to ignite the center of the unit to achieve high 

intensities. Three, 50- to 100-ft strips were lit by the helicopter crew over an hour. 

However, a heli-torch malfunction required the fire crews to finish the ignition 

using wide strip head fires of variable length.

Fuels were moderately dry at the start of the burn with measured moistures as 

follows: 1 hr woody = 11 percent, 10 hr = 9 percent, 100 hr = 8 percent, 1000 hr 

sound = 21 percent, 1000 hr rotten = 22 percent, live shrub = 76 percent, and live 

herbaceous = 49 percent. A hard frost (24 o

F) occurred two days prior to the burn 

so live fuels were dry enough to carry the fire in many areas. At ignition time, 

around 1130, the temperature was 50 oF with a relative humidity of 39 percent. 

During the burn, temperatures increased to 52 to 55 oF and relative humidity decreased to 18 to 23 percent. The temperature was 54 o

F and relative humidity was 

18 percent at the termination of ignition, around 1715. Weather was sunny, clear, 

and mostly calm, with 3 to 5 mph winds from the north and northeast. Antecedent 

weather for the three days prior to the burn was mostly sunny and cool with high 

temperatures in the 50s and relative humidity ranging from 20 to 50 percent. No 

significant rainfall had occurred for six days.

The high intensity prescribed fire had surface flame lengths averaging 3 to 

10 ft with some slash jackpots creating flames reaching 10 to 15 ft. Strip widths 

and ignition rates were designed to maximize intensity and safety. Passive crown 

fire behavior was observed in many areas of the unit with most subalpine fir tree 

crowns torching in over 80-ft flames. The burn consumed nearly all fine fuels and 

duff, and covered more than 95 percent of the unit. Many embers were driven 

aloft by the fire, especially after the passive crown fire activity, and some ignited 

areas outside the boundary and burned portions of the control plots in this study. 

The fire smoldered for a couple of days after the burn, but was monitored by 

District personnel.

ECOS STEM

TREATMENTS

RESTORATION • FUEL REDUCTION • SILVICULTURAL
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.

This site was burned again by the Dry Fork Fire that occurred in August of 

2001. This wildfire burned under dry, summer conditions estimated at 90 oF and 

less than 20 percent relative humidity. However, the wildfire burned only a small 

portion of this unit (less than 5 percent) because of the lack of fine fuels that were 

consumed by the 1999 prescribed burn. All control plots were burned or partially 

burned by this fire, which killed most trees and consumed all fine fuels and most 

coarse woody debris.

Management Recommendations: Nutcrackers harvested seed from still-smoldering cones on trees 

within the fire boundary during the 24 hrs following the burn. We observed extensive caching by nutcrackers throughout the unit, especially during the post-fire 

measurement time. However, whitebark pine tree regeneration was marginal, indicating that 5 years may not be enough time for successful establishment of 

whitebark pine seedlings. We recommend planting these sites with rust-resistant 

whitebark pine seedlings to both ensure the species continued dominance and to 

shorten the lag time to achieve full whitebark pine stocking. Fuel enhancement 

cutting is recommended because it gave the fire crew a wider ignition window and 

it generated higher intensities even though the severities were quite similar across 

the two Blackbird Mountain units (2A, 2B), probably because of the drier burning 

conditions and heli-torch ignition method.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 15
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 17
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 19

Study Site: Blackbird Mountain, Salmon-Challis National 

Forest, Central Idaho

Treatment: High intensity prescribed burn with NO fuel enhancement (Unit 2A)

Management Planning: This treatment was proposed in March of 1997 with a burn plan written in the summer of 1997 and the NEPA work done under a categorical exclusion for research in the 

winter of 1997 and 1998. Public comment was solicited during public meetings held 

during the fall of 1997 and winter of 1998.

Treatment Description: We implemented a high intensity prescribed burn September 11, 1999 to mimic 

stand-replacement fires that were common on the historical landscapes in this area. 

Fire lines surrounding the burn were widened using strip head fires 1 to 10 ft in width. 

A heli-torch was used to ignite the center of the proposed burn at high intensities. Three 

50- to 100-ft strips were lit by the helicopter crew over an hour. However, a heli-torch 

malfunction required the fire crews to finish the ignition using wide strip head fires of 

variable length.

Fuels were moderately dry at the start of the burn with measured moistures as follows: 1 hr woody = 11 percent, 10 hr = 9 percent, 100 hr = 8 percent, 1000 hr sound = 

21 percent, 1000 hr rotten = 22 percent, live shrub = 76 percent, and live herbaceous = 

49 percent. A hard frost (24 oF) had occurred two days prior to burn so live fuels were 

dry enough to actually carry the fire in many areas. When ignition was started around 

1130 to widen fire lines, the temperature was 50 oF with relative humidity at 39 percent. 

During the burn, temperatures increased to 52 to 55 oF and relative humidity decreased 

to 18 to 23 percent. At the end of the burn (1715), the temperature was 54 oF and relative humidity was 18 percent. Weather was sunny, clear, and mostly calm, with 3 to 5 

mph winds from the north and northeast. Antecedent weather for the three days prior to 

the burn was mostly sunny and cool with high temperatures in the 50s and relative humidity ranging from 20 to 50 percent. No significant rainfall had occurred for six days.

The high intensity fire achieved the prescribed surface flame lengths averaging 3 to 

10 ft in this unit. Strip widths and ignition rates were designed to maximize intensity 

and safety. We observed passive crown fire behavior in many areas of the unit with 

most subalpine fir tree crowns torching in more than 80 ft flames. The burn consumed 

nearly all fine fuels and duff, and covered more than 95 percent of the unit. Many 

embers were driven aloft by the fire, especially after the passive crown fires, and some 

ignited areas outside the boundary and burned portions of the control plots in this study. 

The fire smoldered for a couple of days after the burn, but was monitored by District 

personnel.

This site was burned again by the Dry Fork Fire that occurred in August of 2001. 

The wildfire burned under dry, summer conditions estimated at 90 oF and less than 20 

percent relative humidity. However, the fire only burned small portions of this unit 

(less than 5 percent) because of the lack of fine fuels that had been consumed by the 

1999 prescribed burn. Nearly all control plots were burned or scorched by this wildfire, 

which killed most trees and consumed most fine fuels and coarse woody debris.

Management Recommendations: We observed extensive nutcracker caching of whitebark pine seeds 

throughout the unit, especially during the 5 years post-fire. However, whitebark pine 

tree regeneration was marginal indicating that 5 years may not be enough time for seedlings to successfully establish. We recommended planting these sites with rust-resistant 

whitebark pine seedlings both to ensure its continued dominance and to shorten the 

lag time to achieve full stocking. The high intensity and severity achieved with this 

burn without fuel enhancement demonstrates that high intensity prescribed burns are 

possible in natural fuels, but the conditions (temperature, humidity, and wind) must 

be conducive for this treatment. It may be that these conducive conditions are too dry 

and windy to safely contain the prescribed fire without extensive control measures (for 

example, wide fire lines, widespread hose lays, and fuel-free geographical features). 

However, this burn showed it can be done successfully without extensive control. Log 

loadings increased dramatically following the fire because whitebark pine snags fell as 

their bases were consumed by the fire.
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 21
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 23
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 25

Study Site: Coyote Meadows, Bitterroot National Forest, 

Western-Central Montana

Treatment: High intensity prescribed burn with fuel enhancement in cutover unit (Unit 2C)

Management Planning: This treatment was proposed in the summer of 1992 and burn plans were developed during the winter of 1993. This unit was encompassed by a much larger 

area where the Darby Ranger District had already completed the NEPA work. The 

District also pruned all rust-infected branches on whitebark pine trees to reduce 

infection potential in 160 acres surrounding this unit.

Treatment Description: This unit was an unburned 1963 clearcut that contained many residual subalpine fir saplings and poles and some whitebark pine trees. The purpose of the 

treatment was to create post-fire conditions that mimicked a stand-replacement 

fire to facilitate abundant nutcracker caching. The research crew completed the 

fuel enhancement in this unit in late summer of 1993. We cut as many subalpine 

firs as necessary to make a contiguous fuelbed across the unit. Parts of the unit 

were bare or rock, so we directionally felled trees to allow fire to burn in these 

areas through the slash. The only cutting requirement for the fuel enhancement 

treatment was that the cut trees had to be subalpine fir or Engelmann spruce. We 

treated the entire unit in fewer than three days with only two people for about $10 

to $30 per acre.

Fuel and weather conditions were never favorable for the prescribed burn 

treatment for the first 7 years of the study. The entire site finally burned during 

the Bitterroot Fires of 2000. Because we were unable to visit the site during the 

wildfire, no data are available documenting fire weather, fuel moistures, and fire 

behavior, but all post-fire visual evidence indicates that a moderate to high intensity fire burned through the understory and slashed fuels. Weather conditions at 

the time of the fire were hot and dry with temperatures in the low 90s and relative humidity around 20 percent. The burn was patchy because of the variable 

drainage and fuel loadings in the unit. Some trees, mostly subalpine fir, crowned 

during the fire. This burn was somewhat intense with more than 50 percent burn 

coverage.

Management Recommendations: The fuel enhancement cuttings appeared to modify wildfire behavior within the treatment unit compared to adjacent units that did not receive 

fuel enhancement. Burn coverage, tree mortality, and undergrowth plant cover 

reduction levels appeared higher in this unit. Fuel enhancement is clearly beneficial on this moist, poorly drained site because it provided dry fuel on top of 

the green mesic vegetation. We did not observe extensive nutcracker caching in 

the study site until the following year because of road closures. Whitebark pine 

tree regeneration was marginal, indicating that 5 years may not be enough time 

for the successful seedling establishment. The high levels of rust- and fire-caused 

tree mortality in the surrounding seed source might have also prevented extensive nutcracker caching. Though this wildfire burned at higher than the prescribed 

intensity, we feel that wildfire or wildland fire use can be effective for restoring 

whitebark pine. The observed fire effects seem well within the historical range for 

this site. We recommend that burned areas with high levels of blister rust mortality be planted with rust-resistant whitebark pine seeds or seedlings to ensure 

future dominance of this species.
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 27
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 29
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 31

Study Site: Coyote Meadows, Bitterroot National Forest, 

Western-Central Montana

Treatment: High intensity prescribed burn with NO fuel enhancement in cutover unit (Unit 2B)

Management Planning: This treatment was proposed in the summer of 1992 and burn plans were 

developed during the winter of 1993. The unit was encompassed by larger area 

where the Darby Ranger District had already completed the NEPA work. The 

District pruned rust-infected branches on whitebark pine trees to reduce infection 

potential on 160 acres surround this unit.

Treatment Description: This unit was an unburned 1963 clearcut that contained many residual subalpine fir saplings and poles and some whitebark pine trees. The purpose of this 

treatment was to create post-fire conditions that mimicked a stand-replacement 

fire to facilitate abundant nutcracker caching. Fuel and weather conditions were 

unfavorable for implementing the prescribed burn on this unit over the first 7 years 

of the study. The entire site finally burned during the Bitterroot Fires of 2000. 

Because we were unable to visit the site during the wildfire, no data are available 

documenting fire weather, fuel moistures, and fire behavior, but all post-fire visual 

evidence supports a moderate to high intensity fire burning through natural fuels. 

Weather conditions at the time of the fire were hot and dry with temperatures in 

the low 90s and relative humidity around 20 percent. The burn was patchy because of variable fuel moisture (water drainage) and loadings in this unit. Some 

trees, mostly subalpine fir, crowned during the fire. This burn covered about 30 

percent of the ground area. The wildfire burned this treatment unit at much lower 

severities than the fuel enhancement unit.

Management Recommendations: Burn coverage, tree mortality, and undergrowth plant cover reduction levels appeared lower than those observed in the fuel enhancement unit (2C). 

Fuel enhancement was clearly beneficial on this moist, poorly drained site because it provided dry fuel on top of mesic vegetation that stays green throughout 

much of the summer. We did not observe nutcracker caching in the study site until 

2001 because of road restrictions. Whitebark pine tree regeneration for this unit 

was marginal, indicating that 5 years may not be enough time for the successful 

seedling establishment. High levels of rust in the surrounding seed source could 

have prevented extensive caching. Though this wildfire burned at higher than the 

prescribed intensity, we feel that wildfire or wildland fire use can be effective for 

restoring whitebark pine. The observed effects seem well within the historical 

range for this site. We recommend that burned areas with high levels of blister 

rust mortality be planted with rust-resistant whitebark pine seeds or seedlings to 

ensure future dominance of this species.
32 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 33
34 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 35
36 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 37

Mixed-Severity Fires

Study Site: Beaver Ridge, Clearwater National Forest, 

Central Idaho

Treatment: Nutcracker openings with no burn and no planting (Unit 2A)

Management Planning: The Powell Ranger District created a comprehensive “District-Wide whitebark 

pine restoration integrated analysis” in May of 1997 identifying the need for restoration research. In the fall of 1997 it selected two areas for treatment: the Blacklead 

Mountain site and Beaver Ridge site. Public comment was solicited through mail 

in May of 1997 and the NEPA analysis for the Categorical Exclusion was finished 

that September. The cutting treatments were implemented in the summers of 1998 

and 1999. District personnel successfully obtained diverse funding (more than 

$30,000) for this project from multiple sources, including the Nez Perce Tribe, 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Forest 

Service Research, and hazardous fuel reduction monies.

Treatment Description: We created 1- to 3-acre nutcracker openings within this treatment unit by cutting 

all trees except healthy whitebark pine within circular areas that were evenly dispersed across the unit. We cut all subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce trees and left 

all whitebark pine and lodgepole pine between nutcracker openings. The trees were 

limbed where they fell and the resultant slash was scattered across the unit, especially in the nutcracker openings. Limbed logs were arranged to provide stability to 

the slope. Cut logs were not taken from the site because it was not economically feasible. From July 1998 to October 1998, the District fire crew performed the majority 

of the tree cutting and slash piling for this study. The District estimated it spent 

about $66,000 on three units (71 acres) with cutting estimated at $704 per acre.

The Beaver Lake wildfire burned some of the plots established within the unit in 

the summer of 2000. No data are available on the weather and fuel moisture conditions during fire. The lower, southwest corner of the unit was also burned in 1999 

because the prescribed burn in the adjacent unit (2B) jumped the fire line and spread 

into this unit (2A).

Management Recommendations: This treatment, though effective at creating openings in the canopy 

allowing the nutcracker access to the ground, is not recommended for multiple reasons. First, the slash prevented nutcrackers from caching seed in most of the unit, 

so we believe few seeds were actually planted. Next, the slash and slash piles in 

adjacent units fostered an increase in Ips spp. beetle populations that eventually attacked nearly all healthy whitebark pine trees near the slash. Last, the slash, as we 

experienced with the Beaver Lake wildfire, posed a fire hazard and could burn at 

undesirable high severities under wildfire conditions. Instead, we recommend piling 

and burning the slash or broadcast burning the entire unit. Though slash probably 

caused the lack of observed whitebark pine tree regeneration on this unit, it could 

also be from other factors. The high rust-caused whitebark pine mortality on this 

isolated ridge caused a dramatic decrease in seed crops that probably resulted in less 

nutcracker caching. Droughty soils on southern aspects may have fostered an environment too severe for tree regeneration. We recommend that cut areas with high 

levels of blister rust mortality be planted with rust-resistant whitebark pine seeds 

or seedlings to ensure future dominance of this species. The collection of the seed 

from phenotypic rust-resistant whitebark pine trees will increase the chance that the 

planted stock or seed will survive the exotic disease infection.

ECOS STEM

TREATMENTS

RESTORATION • FUEL REDUCTION • SILVICULTURAL
38 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 39
40 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 41
42 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 43

Study Site: Beaver Ridge, Clearwater National Forest, 

Central Idaho

Treatment: Moderate intensity prescribed burn with nutcracker openings and no planting (Unit 2B)

Management Planning: The Powell Ranger District created a comprehensive “District-Wide whitebark pine restoration integrated analysis” in May of 1997 identifying the need for 

restoration research. In the fall of 1997 it selected two areas for treatment: the 

Blacklead Mountain site and Beaver Ridge site. Public comment was solicited 

through mail in May of 1997 and the NEPA analysis for the Categorical Exclusion 

was finished that September. The cutting treatments were implemented in the 

summers of 1998 and 1999. District personnel successfully obtained diverse 

funding (more than $30,000) for this project from multiple sources, including the 

Nez Perce Tribe, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, Forest Service Research, and hazardous fuel reduction monies.

Treatment Description: We created 1- to 3-acre nutcracker openings within this treatment unit by 

cutting all trees except healthy whitebark pine within circular areas that were 

evenly dispersed across the unit. We cut all subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce 

trees and left all whitebark pine and lodgepole pine between nutcracker openings. The trees were limbed where they fell and the resultant slash was scattered 

across the unit, especially in the nutcracker openings. Limbed logs were arranged 

to provide stability to the slope. Cut logs were not taken from the site because it 

was not economically feasible. From July 1998 to October 1998, the District fire 

crew performed the majority of the tree cutting and slash piling for this study. The 

District estimated it spent about $66,000 on three units (71 acres) with cutting 

estimated at $704 per acre.

District fire crews burned this unit September 11, 1999, using strip head fires 

varying in width from 10 to 30 ft. Fuels were mostly dry with measured fuel moistures as follows: 1 hr = 12 percent, 10 hr = 8 percent, 100 hr = 10 percent, sound 

1000 hr = 27 percent, rotten 1000 hr = 34 percent, live herbaceous = 55 percent, 

and live shrubs = 53 percent. Weather conditions at the time of the fires were 

partly cloudy, cool, and moist. The temperature at the start of the burn (1415) 

was 57 oF and relative humidity was 49 percent. By mid-burn (1500), the temperature was 59 o

F and humidity was 47 percent. At the end of the burn (1730), 

the temperature was 53 oF and humidity was its lowest at 43 percent. Winds were 

calm for most of the burn with occasional gusts of 3 to 7 mph from the southwest. 

Antecedent weather was typical of autumn with cool days and cold nights. More 

than 4 inches of snow (0.04 inches of water) fell four days prior to the burn. Both 

this unit and 3B were burned the same day.

Flame lengths on this unit varied from 2 to 8 ft. The fire killed many trees, even 

in the matrix between nutcracker openings, and most subalpine fir trees crowned. 

This burn met nearly all burn plan prescriptions. The burn covered most of the 

unit (greater than 80 percent) and consumed many fine fuels. The prescribed burning cost an estimated $225 per acre for 71 acres (2B, 3B, and 4B).

Management Recommendations: The combination of cutting and burning was highly successful at 

reducing subalpine fir and spruce tree competition for whitebark pine. However, 

many healthy whitebark pine and lodgepole pine also died from fire-related factors, which demonstrates that, given the high fuel moistures and relative humidity 

at the time of burning, it is difficult to craft a prescription for this site that kills 

most fir but allows most whitebark pine to live. We assumed that local whitebark 

pine populations would provide seed sources for regenerating this unit, but we 

may have been wrong. The marginal whitebark pine tree regeneration on this 

site probably resulted from many factors. First, the high whitebark pine mortality on this isolated ridge produced little seed for nutcracker caching. Second, the 
44 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.

nutcrackers probably reclaimed seed from many of their caches. Next, the high 

snowfall, steep slopes, lack of plant cover, and highly erosive soils may have 

influenced the success of seed germination and seedling establishment. Last, the 

droughty soils on southern aspect created severe environments for seedlings, especially when plant cover was low. We recommend that burned areas with high 

levels of blister rust mortality be planted with rust-resistant whitebark pine seeds 

or seedlings to ensure future dominance of this species. The collection of the seed 

from phenotypic rust-resistant whitebark pine trees will increase the chance that 

the planted stock or seed will survive the exotic disease infection. We also feel an 

evaluation of the success of natural regeneration must be made at least a decade 

after burning.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 45
46 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 47
48 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 49

Study Site: Beaver Ridge, Clearwater National Forest, 

Central Idaho

Treatment: Nutcracker openings with planting and no burning (Unit 3A)

Management Planning: The Powell Ranger District created a comprehensive “District-Wide whitebark pine restoration integrated analysis” in May of 1997 identifying the need for 

restoration research. In the fall of 1997 it selected two areas for treatment: the 

Blacklead Mountain site and Beaver Ridge site. Public comment was solicited 

through mail in May of 1997 and the NEPA analysis for the Categorical Exclusion 

was finished that September. The cutting treatments were implemented in the 

summers of 1998 and 1999. District personnel successfully obtained diverse 

funding (more than $30,000) for this project from multiple sources, including the 

Nez Perce Tribe, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, Forest Service Research, and hazardous fuel reduction monies.

Treatment Description: We created 1- to 3-acre nutcracker openings within this treatment unit by cutting all trees except healthy whitebark pine within circular areas that were evenly 

dispersed across the unit. We cut all subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce trees 

and left all whitebark pine and lodgepole pine between nutcracker openings. The 

trees were limbed where they fell and the resultant slash was scattered across the 

unit, especially in the nutcracker openings. Limbed logs were arranged to provide 

stability to the slope. Cut logs were not taken from the site because it was not 

economically feasible. From July 1998 to October 1998, District fire crew performed the majority of the tree cutting and slash piling for this study. The District 

estimated it spent about $66,000 on three units (71 acres) with cutting estimated 

at $704 per acre.

After cutting, the Powell RD planted 30 acres of this unit with 2-year-old 

whitebark pine seedlings grown in a nursery in Lewiston, Idaho. The seedlings 

were planted with approximately 10- by 10-ft spacing and were purposefully 

planted near logs, stumps, or other cover to improve survival. The crew planted 

mostly inside the nutcracker openings.

In the summer of 2000, the Beaver Lake wildfire burned a portion of this unit. 

No data are available documenting the weather and fuel moisture conditions during the fire. Many planted whitebark pine seedlings died from the fire or from the 

severe site conditions experienced during the summer of planting.

Management Recommendations: This treatment, though effective at creating nutcracker openings, 

is not recommended for a number of reasons. First, the slash prevented nutcrackers from caching seed in a majority of the unit so we believe very few seeds 

were actually planted. Second, the slash and slash piles in adjacent units fostered 

an increase in Ips spp. beetle populations that eventually attacked nearly all the 

healthy whitebark pine trees near the slash. Last, the slash, as we experienced with 

the Beaver Lake wildfire, poses a fire hazard and will burn at undesirable high 

severities in wildfire conditions. Instead, we recommend piling and burning the 

slash, or broadcast burning the entire unit. The slash probably caused the lack of 

observed whitebark pine tree regeneration on this unit, but it could also be from 

other factors. The high whitebark pine mortality on this isolated ridge caused a 

dramatic decrease in seed crops that may have resulted in very little nutcracker 

caching. The droughty soils and southern aspect may be too severe for rapid tree 

regeneration while plant cover is low.

We recommend that cut areas with high levels of blister rust mortality be planted 

with rust-resistant whitebark pine seeds or seedlings to ensure future dominance 

of this species. The collection of the seed from phenotypic rust-resistant whitebark pine trees will increase the chance that the planted stock or seed will survive 

the exotic disease infection. Planting whitebark pine seedlings on this site was 
50 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.

marginally successful with less than 30 percent survival over 5 years; seedlings are now about 1 ft tall and robust. This survival rate could be improved 

now that there are planting guidelines for whitebark pine seedling stock 

(McCaughey and others 2009; McCaughey and Scott 2006). We recommend that burned areas with high levels of blister rust mortality be planted 

with whitebark pine seeds or seedlings to ensure future dominance of this 

species. We also feel that the cutting treatment could have been economically feasible as a merchantable harvest given the right market conditions.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 51
52 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 53
54 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 55

Study Site: Beaver Ridge, Clearwater National Forest, 

Central Idaho

Treatment: Moderate intensity prescribed burn with nutcracker openings and planting (Unit 3B)

Management Planning: The Powell Ranger District created a comprehensive “District-Wide whitebark 

pine restoration integrated analysis” in May of 1997 identifying the need for 

restoration research. In the fall of 1997 it selected two areas for treatment: the 

Blacklead Mountain site and Beaver Ridge site. Public comment was solicited 

through mail in May of 1997 and the NEPA analysis for the Categorical Exclusion 

was finished that September. The cutting treatments were implemented in the 

summers of 1998 and 1999. District personnel successfully obtained diverse 

funding (more than $30,000) for this project from multiple sources, including the 

Nez Perce Tribe, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, Forest Service Research, and hazardous fuel reduction monies.

Treatment Description: We created 1- to 3-acre nutcracker openings within this treatment unit by 

cutting all trees except healthy whitebark pine within circular areas that were 

evenly dispersed across the unit. We cut all subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce 

trees and left all whitebark pine and lodgepole pine between nutcracker openings. 

The trees were limbed where they fell and the resultant slash was scattered across 

the unit, especially in the nutcracker openings. Limbed logs were arranged to 

provide stability to the slope. Cut logs were not taken from the site because it 

was not economically feasible. From July 1998 to October 1998, the District fire 

crew performed the majority of the tree cutting and slash piling for this study. The 

District estimated it spent about $66,000 on three units (71 acres) with cutting 

estimated at $704 per acre.

District fire crews burned this unit September 11, 1999, (same day as 2B) using strip head fires varying in width from 10 to 30 ft. Fuels were mostly dry with 

measured fuel moistures as follows: 1 hr = 12 percent, 10 hr = 9 percent, 100 hr 

= 13 percent, sound 1000 hr = 27 percent, rotten 1000 hr = 34 percent, live herbaceous = 55 percent, and live shrubs = 57 percent. Weather conditions at the 

time of the fire were partly cloudy, cool, and moist. The temperature at the start 

of the burn (1415) was 57 oF and relative humidity was at 49 percent. By midburn (1500), the temperature was 59 o

F and humidity was at 47 percent. At the 

end of the burn (1730), the temperature was 53 oF and humidity was its lowest at 

43 percent. Winds were calm for most of the burn with occasional gusts of 3 to 

7 mph from the southwest. Antecedent weather was typical of autumn with cool 

days and cold nights. More than 4 inches of snow (0.04 inches of water) fell four 

days prior to the burn.

Flame lengths on this unit varied from 3 to 8 ft. The fire killed many trees, even 

in the matrix between nutcracker openings, and most subalpine fir trees crowned. 

This burn met nearly all burn plan prescriptions. The burn covered most of the 

unit (greater than 80 percent) and consumed many fine fuels. The prescribed burning cost an estimated $225 per acre for 71 acres (2B, 3B, and 4B).

After cutting, the District planted 30 acres of this unit with 2-year-old whitebark pine seedlings grown in a nursery in Lewiston, Idaho. The seedlings were 

planted with approximately 10- by 10-ft spacing and were purposefully planted 

near logs, stumps, or other cover to improve survival. The crew planted mostly 

inside the nutcracker openings.

Management Recommendations: The combination of cutting and burning was highly successful at 

reducing subalpine fir and spruce tree competition for whitebark pine. However, 

many healthy whitebark pine and lodgepole pine also died from fire-related factors, 

which demonstrates that, given the high fuel moistures and relative humidity at 

the time of burning, it is difficult to craft a prescription for this site that kills 
56 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.

most fir but allows most whitebark pine to live. We assumed that local whitebark 

pine populations would provide seed sources for regenerating this unit, but we 

may have been wrong. The marginal whitebark pine tree regeneration on this 

site probably resulted from many factors. First, the high whitebark pine mortality 

on this isolated ridge produced little seed for nutcracker caching. Second, the 

nutcrackers probably reclaimed seed from many of their caches. Next, the high 

snowfall, steep slopes, lack of plant cover, and highly erosive soils may have 

influenced the success of seed germination and seedling establishment. Last, the 

droughty soils on southern aspect created severe environments for seedlings, 

especially when plant cover was low.

Planting whitebark pine seedlings on this site was marginally successful with 

less than 30 percent survival over 5 years; seedlings are now about 1 ft tall and robust. This survival rate could be improved now that there are planting guidelines 

for whitebark pine seedling stock (McCaughey and others 2009; McCaughey and 

Scott 2006). We recommend that burned areas with high levels of blister rust 

mortality be planted with whitebark pine seeds or seedlings to ensure future dominance of this species. The collection of the seed from phenotypic rust-resistant 

whitebark pine trees will increase the chance that the planted stock or seed will 

survive the exotic disease infection. We also feel an evaluation of the success of 

natural regeneration must be made at least a decade after burning. We also feel 

that the cutting treatment could have been economically feasible as a merchantable harvest given the right market conditions.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 57
58 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 59
60 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 61

Study Site: Beaver Ridge, Clearwater National Forest, 

Central Idaho

Treatment: Moderate intensity prescribed burn with fuel enhancement (Unit 5A)

Management Planning: The Powell Ranger District created a comprehensive “District-Wide whitebark pine 

restoration integrated analysis” in May of 1997 identifying the need for restoration 

research. In the fall of 1997 it selected two areas for treatment: the Blacklead Mountain 

site and Beaver Ridge site. Public comment was solicited through mail in May of 1997 

and the NEPA analysis for the Categorical Exclusion was finished that September. 

The cutting treatments were implemented in the summers of 1998 and 1999. District 

personnel successfully obtained diverse funding (more than $30,000) for this project 

from multiple sources, including the Nez Perce Tribe, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Forest Service Research, and hazardous fuel 

reduction monies.

Treatment Description: We implemented a fuel enhancement treatment in September 1998 by cutting 

subalpine fir or Engelmann spruce tree to increase fuel loadings and improve continuity 

of the fuelbed. We directionally felled the trees to fill in gaps of bare soil within the 

fuelbed, but, in many parts of the stand, there were insufficient subalpine fir trees to 

optimally augment the fuelbed. The District fire crew did some of the saw work but 

most was accomplished through an experienced contract crew. The District estimated 

it spent from $20 to $40 per acre on slashing.

This unit was burned September 28, 2002, by District fire crews using strip head 

fires varying in width from 20 to 60 ft. Fuels were mostly dry with measured moisture 

contents as follows: 1 hr = 10 percent, 14 hr = 3 percent, 100 hr=15 percent, sound 

1000 hr = 19 percent, rotten 1000 hr = 18 percent, live shrubs = 52 percent, and live 

herbaceous at 25 percent. Weather conditions at the time of the fire were sunny and 

warm (50 to 60 o

F), with 3 to 7 mph winds and relative humidity around 30 to 40 percent. Antecedent weather was typical for autumn with cool days and cold nights. No 

significant rain had fallen four days prior to the burn. A terra-torch was used to widen 

the fire line where the unit meets the road.

This prescribed burn was originally designed to mimic a stand-replacement fire using a high intensity prescription, but logistical concerns and insufficient fuels, even 

with fuel enhancement, necessitated a less intense fire, so we implemented a mixedseverity burn at the high end of the mixed-severity category. Flame lengths varied from 

1 to 9 ft with passive crown fire behavior observed throughout the burning period, especially in mature subalpine fir trees. Many trees were killed, especially in those areas 

with dense subalpine fir regeneration, but the pattern of mortality was highly variable. 

Young lodgepole patches experienced mostly non-lethal surface fire, whereas dense fir 

and spruce thickets experienced high mortality because of high intensities. This burn 

was cooler than planned because of the moist conditions but still met many burn plan 

objectives. The burn covered most of the unit (greater than 70 percent) and consumed 

many fine fuels. The prescribed burning cost an estimated $200 per acre. Areas around 

the research plots burned at lower intensities than the rest of the burn.

Management Recommendations: Though this burn was successful, a more continuous and heavier fine fuel 

component would have achieved higher fir mortality under less than optimal moisture 

contents. This burn was successful because a hard frost (less than 25 oF) occurred on the 

site two weeks prior to the burn and killed most shrub and herbaceous foliage, which 

allowed plants to dry below 50 percent moisture contents.

We observed abundant nutcracker harvesting but very little caching in this unit. 

Whitebark pine tree regeneration was marginal on this site probably because of the lack 

of nutcracker caching, high burn severity, and severity of site (doughty soils, southfacing slopes, and heavy snow loads). We recommend that burned areas with high 

levels of blister rust mortality be planted with rust-resistant whitebark pine seeds or 

seedlings to ensure future dominance of this species. The collection of the seed from 

phenotypic rust-resistant whitebark pine trees will increase the chance that the planted 

stock or seed will survive the exotic disease infection. We also feel an evaluation of the 

success of natural regeneration must be made at least a decade after burning.
62 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 63
64 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 65
66 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 67

Study Site: Beaver Ridge, Clearwater National Forest, 

Central Idaho

Treatment: Moderate intensity prescribed burn with NO fuel enhancement (Unit 5B)

Management Planning: The Powell Ranger District created a comprehensive “District-Wide whitebark 

pine restoration integrated analysis” in May of 1997 identifying the need for 

restoration research. In the fall of 1997 it selected two areas for treatment: the 

Blacklead Mountain site and Beaver Ridge site. Public comment was solicited 

through mail in May of 1997 and the NEPA analysis for the Categorical Exclusion 

was finished that September. The cutting treatments were implemented in the 

summers of 1998 and 1999. District personnel successfully obtained diverse 

funding (more than $30,000) for this project from multiple sources, including the 

Nez Perce Tribe, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, Forest Service Research, and hazardous fuel reduction monies.

Treatment Description: This unit was burned September 28, 2002, by District fire crews using strip 

head fires varying in width from 20 to 60 ft. Fuels were mostly dry with measured 

moisture contents as follows: 1 hr = 10 percent, 14 hr = 3 percent, 100 hr = 15 

percent, sound 1000 hr = 19 percent, rotten 1000 hr = 18 percent, live shrubs = 

52 percent, and live herbaceous at 25 percent. Weather conditions at the time of 

the fire were sunny and warm (50 to 60 oF), with 3 to 7 mph winds and relative 

humidity around 30 to 40 percent. Antecedent weather was typical for autumn 

with cool days and cold nights. No significant rain had fallen four days prior to the 

burn. A terra-torch was used to widen the fire line where the unit meets the road.

This prescribed burn was originally designed to mimic a stand-replacement fire 

using a high intensity prescription, but logistical concerns and insufficient fuels, 

even with fuel enhancement, necessitated a less intense fire, so we implemented a 

mixed-severity burn at the high end of the mixed-severity category. Flame lengths 

varied from 1 to 9 ft with passive crown fire behavior observed throughout the 

burning period, especially in mature subalpine fir trees. Many trees were killed, 

especially in those areas with dense subalpine fir regeneration, but the pattern 

of mortality was highly variable. Young lodgepole patches experienced mostly 

non-lethal surface fire, whereas dense fir and spruce thickets experienced high 

mortality because of high intensities. This burn was cooler than planned because 

of the moist conditions but still met many burn plan objectives. The burn covered 

most of the unit (greater than 70 percent) and consumed many fine fuels. The prescribed burning cost an estimated $200 per acre. Areas around the research plots 

burned at lower intensities than the rest of the burn.

Management Recommendations: Though this burn was successful, a more continuous and heavier 

fine fuel component would have achieved higher fir mortality under less than 

optimal moisture contents. This burn was successful because a hard frost (less 

than 25 oF) occurred on the site two weeks prior to the burn and killed most shrub 

and herbaceous foliage which allowed plants to dry below 50 percent moisture 

contents.

We observed abundant nutcracker harvesting but very little caching in this unit. 

Whitebark pine tree regeneration was marginal on this site probably because of the 

lack of nutcracker caching, high burn severity, and severity of site (doughty soils, 

south-facing slopes, and heavy snow loads). We recommend that burned areas 

with high levels of blister rust mortality be planted with rust-resistant whitebark 

pine seeds or seedlings to ensure future dominance of this species. The collection 

of the seed from phenotypic rust-resistant whitebark pine trees will increase the 

chance that the planted stock or seed will survive the exotic disease infection. We 

also feel an evaluation of the success of natural regeneration must be made at least 

a decade after burning.
68 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 69
70 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 71
72 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 73

Study Site: Coyote Meadows, Bitterroot National Forest, 

Western-Central Montana

Treatment: Moderate intensity prescribed burn with fuel enhancement (Unit 3C)

Management Planning: This treatment was proposed in the summer of 1992 and burn plans were 

developed during the winter of 1993. This unit was encompassed by a much larger 

area where the Darby Ranger District had already completed the NEPA work. The 

District also pruned all rust-infected branches on whitebark pine trees to reduce 

infection potential in 160 acres surrounding this unit.

Treatment Description: The research crew completed the fuel enhancement in this unit in late summer 

of 1993. We cut as many subalpine firs as necessary to make a contiguous fuelbed 

across the unit. Parts of the unit were bare or rock, so we directionally felled trees 

to allow fire to burn in these areas through the slash. The only cutting requirement 

for the fuel enhancement treatment was that the cut trees had to be subalpine fir 

or Engelmann spruce. We treated the entire unit in one day with only two people 

for about $10 to $35 per acre.

Fuel and weather conditions were never favorable for the prescribed burn 

treatment for the first 7 years of the study. The entire site finally burned during 

the Bitterroot Fires of 2000. Because we were unable to visit the site during the 

wildfire, no data are available documenting fire weather, fuel moistures, and fire 

behavior, but all post-fire visual evidence indicates that a moderate to high intensity fire burned through the understory and slashed fuels. Weather conditions at 

the time of the fire were hot and dry with temperatures in the low 90s and relative 

humidity around 20 percent. However, this burn was quite intense and ended up 

killing nearly all trees on the site. Burn coverage was nearly complete with more 

than 90 percent of the area burned. The wildfire burned at a severity much higher 

than that targeted by the prescribed burn plan. Although the wildfire appeared to 

burn as a surface fire, it killed most trees and consumed all fine and most coarse 

woody fuels.

Management Recommendations: The fuel enhancement cuttings appeared not to modify wildfire 

behavior within the treatment unit compared to adjacent units that did not receive 

fuel enhancement. Burn coverage, tree mortality, and undergrowth plant cover 

reduction levels seemed the same across 3A and 3B. Fuel enhancement is clearly 

beneficial on this moist, poorly drained site because it provided dry fuel on top of 

the green mesic vegetation.

We did not observe extensive nutcracker caching in the study site until the 

following year because of road closures. Whitebark pine tree regeneration was 

marginal, indicating that 5 years may not be enough time for successful seedling 

establishment. The high levels of rust- and fire-caused tree mortality in the surrounding seed source might have also prevented extensive nutcracker caching. 

Though this wildfire burned at higher than the prescribed intensity, we feel that 

wildfire or wildland fire use can be effective for restoring whitebark pine. The 

observed fire effects seem well within the historical range for this site. We recommend that burned areas with high levels of blister rust mortality be planted with 

rust-resistant whitebark pine seeds or seedlings to ensure future dominance of this 

species. Log loadings increased dramatically following the fire because whitebark 

pine snags fell as their bases were consumed by the fire.
74 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 75
76 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 77
78 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 79

Study Site: Coyote Meadows, Bitterroot National Forest, 

Western-Central Montana

Treatment: Moderate intensity prescribed burn with NO fuel enhancement (Unit 3B)

Management Planning: This treatment was proposed in the summer of 1992 and burn plans were 

developed during the winter of 1993. This unit was encompassed by a much larger 

area where the Darby Ranger District had already completed the NEPA work. The 

District also pruned all rust-infected branches on whitebark pine trees to reduce 

infection potential in 160 acres surrounding this unit.

Treatment Description: Fuel and weather conditions were never favorable for the prescribed burn 

treatment for the first 7 years of the study. The entire site finally burned during 

the Bitterroot Fires of 2000. Because we were unable to visit the site during the 

wildfire, no data are available documenting fire weather, fuel moistures, and 

fire behavior, but all post-fire visual evidence indicates that a moderate to high 

intensity fire burned through the understory and slashed fuels. Weather conditions 

at the time of the fire were hot and dry with temperatures in the low 90s and 

relative humidity around 20 percent. However, this burn was quite intense and 

ended up killing nearly all trees on the site. Burn coverage was nearly complete 

with more than 90 percent of the area burned. The wildfire burned at a severity 

much higher than that targeted by the prescribed burn plan. Although the wildfire 

appeared to burn as a surface fire, it killed most trees and consumed all fine 

and most coarse woody fuels. Because the 2000 wildfire burned at higher than 

expected intensities, effects of fuel enhancement might have been masked.

Management Recommendations: The fuel enhancement cuttings did not appear to modify wildfire 

behavior within the treatment unit compared to adjacent units that did not receive 

fuel enhancement. Burn coverage, tree mortality, and undergrowth plant cover 

reduction levels seemed the same across 3A and 3B. This might indicate that 

warmer, drier burn prescriptions may not always require fuel enhancement for 

success, but there will be significant increases in tree mortality. Fuel enhancement 

is clearly beneficial on this moist, poorly drained site because it provided dry fuel 

on top of the green mesic vegetation, but the high wildfire intensities confound the 

interpretation of this effect.

We did not observe extensive nutcracker caching in the study site until the 

following year because of road closures. Whitebark pine tree regeneration was 

marginal, indicating that 5 years may not be enough time for the successful seedling establishment. The high levels of rust- and fire-caused tree mortality in the 

surrounding seed source might have also prevented extensive nutcracker caching. 

Though this wildfire burned at higher than the prescribed intensity, we feel that 

wildfire or wildland fire use can be effective for restoring whitebark pine. The 

observed fire effects seem well within the historical range for this site. We recommend that burned areas with high levels of blister rust mortality be planted with 

rust-resistant whitebark pine seeds or seedlings to ensure future dominance of this 

species. Log loadings increased dramatically following the fire because whitebark 

pine snags fell as their bases were consumed by the fire.
80 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 81
82 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 83
84 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 85

Study Site: Smith Creek, Bitterroot National Forest, 

Western-Central Montana

Treatment: Commercial Harvest using nutcracker openings followed by moderate intensity 

prescribed burn (Unit 2A)

Management Planning: The Stevensville District performed a biological evaluation for sensitive 

plant species in June of 1994 and the findings were that “no individual sensitive 

plants would be affected because none were found.” The Forest Hydrologist 

who evaluated the treatment suggested that the riparian areas be excluded from 

treatment due to Montana’s Streamside Management Zone rules. The treatments 

were planned and implemented as a demonstration research study project using 

standard NEPA analyses. The harvest units were cruised, marked, and traversed 

in the summer of 1994. A burn plan was written in the summer of 1996 and signed 

in September of 1996.

Treatment Description: Because the site is accessible by road, fire patches were simulated by 

commercially cutting all trees except for healthy, cone-bearing whitebark pine 

in small, 0.1- to 0.5-acre circular nutcracker openings to entice nutcrackers to 

cache whitebark pine seeds in the treated area. Circular units were located to 

maximize the distance to subalpine fir seed sources even though historical 

fires probably were irregularly shaped. No more than 40 percent of the entire 

unit was cut in nutcracker openings. A commercial thinning was done between 

nutcracker openings during which all subalpine fir and spruce, some lodgepole 

pine, and dying whitebark pine were removed from the forested areas down to 

approximately 50 ft2 per acre of basal area. We did this to limit the seed rain from 

the wind-dispersed, shade tolerant tree species that could out-compete nutcrackercached whitebark pine seedlings after treatment. All merchantable trees were 

whole tree skidded to log decks where they were limbed. The slash was piled and 

burned off-site. The loggers left substantial slash (approximately 20 tons per acre) 

on-site because of significant broken branches from skidding. We also cut and left 

all non-merchantable subalpine fir and spruce. Total harvest volume by species 

for the three treatments was as follows: lodgepole and dying whitebark pine = 

26 thousand board ft (MBF), subalpine fir = 14 MBF, and Engelmann spruce = 6 

MBF.

The unit was burned on October 3, 1996, using strip head fires varying in 

width from 10 to 15 ft. We measured the following fuel moistures at the start of 

the burn: 1 hr = 12 percent, 10 hr = 8 percent, 100 hr = 10 percent, 1000 hr sound 

= 15.7 percent, 1000 hr rotten = 18.6 percent, 10000 hr (greater than 9 inches 

diameter) sound = 21.4 percent, and 10000 hr rotten = 26.2 percent. At the start of 

the burn (1230), the temperature was 59 o

F with relative humidity at 28 percent. 

The temperature increased to 60 oF and relative humidity decreased to 21 percent 

by 1500. The burn lasted until 1910 when the temperature was 56 oF and relative 

humidity was 29 percent. Weather was partly cloudy with 5 to 10 mph wind gusts 

upslope from the southwest. A total of 0.96 inches of rain had fallen on the site 

over the previous three weeks with no precipitation recorded three days prior to 

burn.

Flame lengths varied from 3 to 6 ft with flames in some slash jackpots reaching 8 to 10 ft. Strip widths and ignition rates were adjusted to keep flame lengths 

just under 6 ft. We observed passive crown fire behavior in some areas of the unit 

with most tall subalpine fir tree crowns torching in 100-ft flames. Very little of 

the riparian area was burned. A hard frost (23 o

F) occurred four days prior to burn 

and killed shrub foliage. Embers were driven aloft by the fire, especially after the 

passive crown fires, but rarely ignited fuels outside the burn boundary. The fire 

smoldered for seven days but was monitored by District personnel. Prescribed 

burning cost an estimated $2900 for the 10 acres or $290 per acre. We estimate an 
86 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.

additional 40 percent burn cover in the days after the prescribed burn indicating 

that the majority of desirable effects may take place in post-frontal combustion 

and smoldering.

This site was burned again by spotting from the Gash Creek Fire in August of 

2006. The wildfire burned under hot, dry summer conditions estimated at 90 oF 

and 20 percent relative humidity. However, the fire only burned small portions 

of this unit (less than 10 percent) because of the lack of fine fuels that had been 

consumed by the 1996 prescribed fire.

Management Recommendations: The logging contractor sold approximately $10,000 of timber 

harvested from this unit, proving that if the treatment area is near a road, it is 

possible to conduct a profitable harvest in some whitebark pine forests. Slash 

should be removed from the site or burned using prescribed fire so that nutcrackers 

have full access to the ground and to prevent regeneration mortality from future 

unplanned fires. For example, the 2006 Gash Fire burned in and around the entire 

Smith Creek study site but the unit was only lightly burned (less than 10 percent 

burned) because of the lack of fine fuel from the 1996 prescribed burn. Whitebark 

pine tree regeneration was marginal, indicating that even after 10 years, the site 

still does not contain substantial regeneration. We observed extensive nutcracker 

caching in the fall of 1997 and 1998 in this unit so we are sure that seeds were 

planted in this site, but we don’t know how many of the cached seeds were 

reclaimed by the nutcrackers or found by rodents. We recommend planting these 

sites with rust-resistant whitebark pine seedlings both to ensure its continued 

dominance and to shorten the lag time in achieving full stocking.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 87
88 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 89
90 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 91

Study Site: Smith Creek, Bitterroot National Forest, 

Western Montana

Treatment: Commercial Harvest using nutcracker openings with no prescribed fire (Unit 2B)

Management Planning: The Stevensville District performed a biological evaluation for sensitive 

plant species in June of 1994 and the findings were that “no individual sensitive 

plants would be affected because none were found.” The Forest Hydrologist 

who evaluated the treatment suggested that the riparian areas be excluded from 

treatment due to Montana’s Streamside Management Zone rules. The treatments 

were planned and implemented as a demonstration research study project using 

standard NEPA analyses. The harvest units were cruised, marked, and traversed 

in the summer of 1994. A burn plan was written in the summer of 1996 and signed 

in September of 1996.

Treatment Description: Because the site is accessible by road, mixed-severity fire patches were 

simulated by commercially cutting all trees except for healthy, cone-bearing 

whitebark pine in small, 0.1 to 0.5-acre circular nutcracker openings to entice 

nutcrackers to cache whitebark pine seeds in the treated area. Circular units 

were located to maximize the distance to subalpine fir seed sources even though 

historical fires probably were irregularly shaped. No more than 40 percent of 

the entire unit was cut in nutcracker openings. A commercial thinning was done 

between nutcracker openings, during which all subalpine fir and spruce, some 

lodgepole pine, and dying whitebark pine were removed from the forested areas 

down to approximately 50 ft2 per acre of basal area. We did this to limit the seed 

rain from the wind-dispersed, shade tolerant tree species that could out-compete 

nutcracker-cached whitebark pine seedlings after treatment. All merchantable 

trees were whole tree skidded to log decks where they were limbed. The slash 

was piled and burned off-site. The loggers left substantial slash (approximately 

20 tons per acre) on-site because of significant broken branches from skidding. 

We also cut and left all non-merchantable subalpine fir and spruce. Total harvest 

volume by species for the three treatments was as follows: lodgepole and dying 

whitebark pine = 26 thousand board ft (MBF), subalpine fir = 14 MBF, and 

Engelmann spruce = 6 MBF.

This site was burned by spotting from the Gash Creek Fire in August of 2006. 

The wildfire burned under hot, dry summer conditions estimated at 90 oF and 

20 percent relative humidity. The fire burned intensely through the remaining 

slash, scorching more than 90 percent of the site and killing most regeneration.

Management Recommendations: The logging contractor sold approximately $10,000 of timber 

harvested from this unit, proving that if the treatment area is near a road, it is 

possible to conduct a profitable harvest in some whitebark pine forests. Slash 

should be removed from the site or burned using prescribed fire so that nutcrackers 

have full access to the ground and to prevent regeneration mortality from future 

unplanned fires. For example, the 2006 Gash Fire burned in and around the entire 

Smith Creek study site, but the unit was only lightly burned (less than 10 percent 

burned) because of the lack of fine fuel from the 1996 prescribed burn. Whitebark 

pine tree regeneration was marginal, indicating that even after 10 years, the site 

still does not contain substantial regeneration. We observed extensive nutcracker 

caching in the fall of 1997 and 1998 in this unit so we are sure that seeds were 

planted in this site, but we don’t know how many of the cached seeds were 

reclaimed by the nutcrackers or found by rodents. We recommend planting these 

sites with rust-resistant whitebark pine seedlings both to ensure its continued 

dominance and to shorten the lag time in achieving full stocking.
92 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 93
94 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 95
96 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 97

Non-Lethal Surface Fires

Study Site: Bear Overlook, Bitterroot National Forest, 

Western Montana

Treatment: Low intensity prescribed burn with fuel enhancement (Unit 2A)

Management Planning: This treatment was proposed in the winter of 1996 by the Stevensville District 

for a 200+ acre study site. The District completed the burn plan in August of 1997 

and NEPA work was finished by winter of 1998. The District did not want the 

prescribed fire escaping into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area located near 

the treatment boundaries. This site was sensitive because it contained the most 

popular hiking trail and scenic overlook on the Bitterroot National Forest.

Treatment Description: Crews cut and directionally felled any sized subalpine fir or Engelmann 

spruce trees to cover bare areas on the ground to enhance the fuel by increasing 

fuel continuity and loading. The Stevensville District employed smokejumpers 

and its fire crew to cut the fire line and perform the fuel enhancement cuttings. 

The treatment doubled and sometimes tripled fine fuel loadings on some of the 

research plots. The cost of fuel enhancement ranged from $20 to $80 per acre 

depending on the density of subalpine fir trees and the skill of the saw crew. Many 

whitebark pine snags were cut during the fuel enhancement for safety reasons.

About 40 fire crew members from across the Bitterroot National Forest implemented the prescribed burn on October 5, 1999. The burn was intended to mimic a 

mixed-severity burn by killing overstory and understory subalpine fir trees (greater than 50 percent) and creating optimal caching habitat for the nutcracker. Crews 

ignited the burn in the upper, northwestern portion of the unit first using strip head 

fires and progressively burned downward to the lower, southeastern portion of 

the unit. Strips were hand-lit with drip-torches and widths varied from 10 to 30 ft 

depending on observed fire behavior. A goal was to keep flame lengths below 8 ft. 

We measured the following woody fuel moistures at the time of fire: 1 hr = 8 percent, 10 hr = 12 percent, 100 hr = 6 percent, sound 1000 hr = 20 percent, rotten 

1000 hr = 25 percent, live herbaceous = 42 percent, live shrub = 45, and live tree 

seedlings = 40 percent. The top portion of the unit was ignited 30 minutes after a 

test fire that was started at 1300 revealed acceptable fire behavior. Weather conditions were highly variable (partly sunny) with 2 to 9 mph winds gusting up to 

15 mph. At 1630, the winds became calm and a small rain squall moved through 

the area. The temperature was 62 o

F at the start of the burn and 55 oF at the end of 

ignition (1800). Relative humidity was 27 to 30 percent at ignition and increased 

to 40 percent by the end of the burn. There was light rain shower activity in the 

area the three days preceding the burn.

This prescribed fire was spotty due to the variable wind and moisture conditions. It achieved the prescribed goal in areas where fuel enhancement left the 

greatest amount of downed slash. The fuel enhancement treatment allowed a wider burn window for the fire crew by increasing the availability and contagion of 

fine woody debris. However, because of a lack of subalpine fir trees, much of the 

stand (greater than 40 percent) did not have sufficient fuel enhancement to carry 

the fire, which contributed to the low burn area within the plots (less than 20 percent of plot was burned) and low burn severity. The high humidity, combined 

with the moist 10-hr fuels and the intermittent showers, resulted in incomplete 

ECOS STEM

TREATMENTS

RESTORATION • FUEL REDUCTION • SILVICULTURAL
98 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.

consumption of many fine fuels and inconsistent and incomplete fire spread. The 

surface fire ignited some crowns of large overstory subalpine fir and spruce, causing crown flame lengths to exceed 50 ft, but most lodgepole and whitebark pine 

trees did not experience crown fires. Because rain showers occurred in the afternoon, the prescribed fire burned coolest in the lower portions of the unit that 

contained the research plots.

Management Recommendations: Fuel enhancement is an essential activity for achieving the desired 

goals of restoration. This treatment is best implemented after the first hard frost 

of the autumn (less than 25 oF). It is most effective when the fuelbed is enhanced 

by cutting and felling large subalpine fir trees. It is also best to wait one year 

after cutting to allow the woody fuels and foliage to cure. This unit should have 

been burned again under drier and maybe windier conditions to kill more shadetolerant subalpine fir and to create better nutcracker caching habitat. Though 

additional fuel enhancement could have been implemented in some places, there 

appeared to be sufficient residual fine fuel in many unburned and burned areas to 

carry a second fire.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 99
100 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 101
102 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 103

Study Site: Bear Overlook, Bitterroot National Forest, 

Western Montana

Treatment: Low intensity prescribed burn with NO fuel enhancement (Unit 1A)

Management Planning: This treatment was proposed in the winter of 1996 by the Stevensville District 

for a 200+ acre study site. The District completed the burn plan in August of 1997 

and NEPA work was finished by winter of 1998. The District did not want the 

prescribed fire escaping into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area located near 

the treatment boundaries. This site was sensitive because it contained the most 

popular hiking trail and scenic overlook on the Bitterroot National Forest.

Treatment Description: About 40 fire crew members from across the Bitterroot National Forest 

implemented the prescribed burn on October 5, 1999. The burn was intended 

to mimic a mixed-severity burn by killing overstory and understory subalpine 

fir trees (greater than 50 percent) and creating optimal caching habitat for the 

nutcracker. Crews ignited the burn in the upper, northwestern portion of the 

unit first using strip head fires and progressively burned downward to the lower, 

southeastern portion of the unit. Strips were hand-lit with drip-torches and widths 

varied from 10 to 30 ft depending on observed fire behavior. A goal was to keep 

flame lengths below 8 ft. We measured the following woody fuel moistures at 

the time of fire: 1 hr = 8 percent, 10 hr = 12 percent, 100 hr = 6 percent, sound 

1000 hr = 20 percent, rotten 1000 hr = 25 percent, live herbaceous = 42 percent, 

live shrub = 45, and live tree seedlings = 40 percent. The top portion of the unit 

was ignited 30 minutes after a test fire that was started at 1300 revealed acceptable 

fire behavior. Weather conditions were highly variable (partly sunny) with 2 to 

9 mph winds gusting up to 15 mph. At 1630, the winds became calm and a small 

rain squall moved through the area. The temperature was 62 oF at the start of the 

burn and 55 oF at the end of ignition. Relative humidity was 27 to 30 percent at 

ignition and increased to 40 percent by the end of the burn. There was light rain 

shower activity in the area the three days preceding the burn.

This prescribed fire was spotty due to the variable wind and moisture conditions. It burned the best in the lowest, southwestern part of the study site where 

there was dense subalpine fir sapling regeneration. The low fine fuel loadings and 

the high fuel moistures caused by the rain and high humidity did not allow the 

fire to spread to significant portions of the stand. A great part of the stand (greater 

than 50 percent) did not have sufficient fuels to carry the fire, which contributed 

to the low burn area within the plots (less than 20 percent). The surface fire ignited 

some crowns of large overstory subalpine fir and spruce causing high crown flame 

lengths, but most lodgepole and whitebark pine did not experience crown fires. 

The fire burned best in less dense areas with low tree cover that allowed more 

solar radiation to warm and dry the fuelbed. Because rain showers occurred in the 

late afternoon, the prescribed fire burned coolest in the parts of the unit burned 

last, which included nearly all research plots.

Management Recommendations: Fuel enhancement is an essential activity for achieving the desired 

goals of restoration—it was obvious that whitebark pine stands with low fuel 

loadings should be treated to increase fine fuel loadings. This treatment is best 

implemented after the first hard frost of the autumn (less than 25 °F). It is most 

effective when the fuelbed is enhanced by cutting and felling large subalpine 

fir trees. It is also best to wait one year after cutting to allow the woody fuels 

and foliage to cure. This unit should have been burned again under drier and 

maybe windier conditions to kill more shade-tolerant subalpine fir and to create 

better nutcracker caching habitat. Though fuel enhancement could have been 

implemented in some places, there appeared to be sufficient fine fuel in many 

unburned areas to carry a second fire.
104 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 105
106 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 107
108 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 109

Study Site: Beaver Ridge, Clearwater National Forest, 

Central Idaho

Treatment: Low intensity prescribed burn with NO fuel enhancement (Unit 4A)

Management Planning: The Powell Ranger District created a comprehensive “District-Wide whitebark 

pine restoration integrated analysis” in May of 1997 identifying the need for 

restoration research. In the fall of 1997 it selected two areas for treatment: the 

Blacklead Mountain site and Beaver Ridge site. Public comment was solicited 

through mail in May of 1997 and the NEPA analysis for the Categorical Exclusion 

was finished that September. The cutting treatments were implemented in the 

summers of 1998 and 1999. District personnel successfully obtained diverse 

funding (more than $30,000) for this project from multiple sources, including the 

Nez Perce Tribe, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation, Forest Service Research, and hazardous fuel reduction monies.

Treatment Description: This unit was burned September 4, 2002, by District fire crews. It was 

supposed to be burned the same day as 4B but time did not allow for this. We 

measured the following fuel moistures on the day of the burn: 1 hr = 9 percent, 10 

hr = 10 percent, 100 hr = 10 percent, sound 1000 hr = 19 percent, rotten 1000 hr 

= 20 percent, live herb = 56 percent, and live shrubs = 54 percent. Antecedent 

weather for the three days prior to the burn was partly cloudy, cool (60s to 70s), 

and somewhat dry. The temperature at the start of the burn (1100) was 57 oF and the 

relative humidity was 40 percent. At the height of the burning period (1715), the 

temperature was 74 oF with relative humidity around 32 percent. Winds averaged 

3 to 7 mph for most of the burn with occasional gusts of 7 to 12 mph from the 

northwest. Fire crews first burned out the fire lines surrounding the unit, then 

started lighting a 10- to 40-ft strip head fires from the newly created fire line at the 

ridgetop down to the road that delineated the bottom of the unit. The western end 

of the unit burned the hottest and experienced the greatest tree mortality.

The prescribed burn was very spotty and effects were highly variable. However, 

it appears that the burn coverage of this unit was nearly the same as that of the fuel 

enhanced unit (4B). Tree mortality was highly variable depending on fuel coverage, but, overall, it was much less than expected. The discontinuity of the fuelbed 

resulted in variable burn cover and very little fir regeneration mortality. The prescribed burning cost an estimated $250 to $300 per acre for 23 acres.

Management Recommendations: This treatment illustrates that drier burn conditions can achieve the 

same results as fuel enhancement cuttings, though neither was particularly effective at this site. The dry conditions needed to conduct a successful low intensity 

surface fire would probably be so dry that spotting and containment might be a 

problem. We probably should have waited until three days after the first hard frost 

before we burned this unit to allow the shrub and herbaceous fuels sufficient time 

to dry to moistures lower than 50 percent (no recent frost was recorded for this 

site). This unit needs at least one more prescribed burn for the restoration treatment to be effective, but this might only be possible if another fuel enhancement 

cutting was implemented. As with all the other study results, there was very little 

whitebark pine regeneration observed on these plots. We suggest additional burns 

if fuel enhancement is possible or if sufficient fuels are on the ground. These sites 

should not be planted because the seedlings might stagnate under the surviving 

canopy (Keane and others 2007).
110 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 111
112 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 113
114 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 115

Study Site: Beaver Ridge, Clearwater National Forest, 

Central Idaho

Treatment: Low intensity prescribed burn with fuel enhancement (Unit 4B)

Management Planning: The Powell Ranger District created a comprehensive “District-Wide whitebark 

pine restoration integrated analysis” in May of 1997 identifying the need for 

restoration research. In the fall of 1997 it selected two areas for treatment: the 

Blacklead Mountain site and Beaver Ridge site. Public comment was solicited 

through mail in May of 1997 and the NEPA analysis for the Categorical Exclusion 

was finished that September. The cutting treatments were implemented in the 

summers of 1998 and 1999. District personnel successfully obtained diverse funding 

(more than $30,000) for this project from multiple sources, including the Nez Perce 

Tribe, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 

Forest Service Research, and hazardous fuel reduction monies.

Treatment Description: District and contract crews implemented the fuel enhancement treatment by 

cutting and directionally felling subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce trees to increase 

fuel loadings and to improve continuity of the fuelbed. The District fire crew 

completed some of the work but most was accomplished through an experienced 

contract crew. The cutting was implemented in September of 1998 and cost an 

estimated $40 per acre.

This unit was burned September 10, 1999, by District fire crews. We measured 

the following fuel moistures the day of the burn: 1 hr = 11 percent, 10 hr = 16 percent, 100 hr = 12 percent, sound 1000 hr = 17 percent, rotten 1000 hr = 23 percent, 

live herbs = 54 percent, and live shrubs = 50 percent. Antecedent weather for the 

three days prior to the burn and the day of the burn was partly cloudy, cool, and 

somewhat dry. The temperature at the start of the burn (1445) was 64 oF and relative 

humidity was 40 percent. By 1525 hours, the temperature was its highest (62 oF) 

and humidity was 31 percent. By 1715 (end of burn), the temperature was 61 oF and 

humidity was the lowest at 30 percent. Winds averaged 3 to 5 mph for most of the 

burn with occasional gusts of 3 to 7 mph from the southwest. More than 3 inches of 

snow (0.02 inches of water) fell four days prior to the burn. Fire crews first burned 

a fire line across the top of the unit, then ignited a10- to 40-ft strip head fires from 

the burned fire line to the road at the bottom of the unit. The western end of the unit 

burned the hottest and experienced the greatest tree mortality.

The prescribed burn was very spotty and effects were highly variable. Areas 

with abundant fuel enhancement experienced the highest burn coverage and highest 

subalpine fir mortality, contrasted to areas with low loadings that experienced very 

little burn coverage. Tree mortality was highly variable depending on fuel coverage, 

but, overall, it was much less than expected. The crews were also supposed to burn 

unit 4A but did not have the time. The prescribed burning cost an estimated $225 

per acre for the 71 acres (3 units).

Management Recommendations: Fuel enhancement cuttings increased the fire severity in this unit 

by killing more subalpine fir trees and creating more desirable caching habitat. 

Fuel enhancement is essential on these droughty soils because of the low cover—

biomass of the undergrowth vegetation provides the fuel to carry the surface fire. 

We observed both nutcracker harvesting and caching on this unit.

We feel that non-lethal surface fires without fuel enhancement might be difficult 

to implement in this forest type because the dry conditions needed to burn the unit 

may increase the chance that the fire would spot to adjacent areas. Unless subalpine 

fir trees are available to enhance the fuelbed, the site should probably not be treated. 

The spotty character of the fire and fuels on this site suggests that additional fire 

treatments might be necessary to accomplish the objectives of the treatment. We 

suggest implementing additional burns if fuel enhancement is possible or if sufficient surface fuels are available. These sites probably should not be planted because 

most whitebark pine seedlings might stagnate under the surviving canopy.
116 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 117
118 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 119
120 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 121

Study Site: Smith Creek, Bitterroot National Forest, 

Western Montana

Treatment: Low intensity prescribed burn with NO fuel enhancement (Unit 1A)

Management Planning: The objective of this treatment was to enhance the vigor of living whitebark 

pine trees so that they could produce more cones. This differs from the other 

Smith Creek units (2A and 2B) where the objective was to encourage and enhance 

whitebark pine regeneration. The Stevensville District performed a biological 

evaluation for sensitive plant species in June of 1994 and the findings were that 

“no individual sensitive plants would be affected because none were found.” The 

Forest Hydrologist who evaluated the treatment suggested that the riparian areas 

be excluded from treatment due to Montana’s Streamside Management Zone rules. 

The treatments were planned and implemented as a demonstration research study 

project using standard NEPA analyses. The harvest units were cruised, marked, 

and traversed in the summer of 1994. A burn plan was written in the summer of 

1996 and signed in September of 1996.

Treatment Description: The low intensity prescribed burn was implemented on October 3, 1996, 

using strip head fires with the strips varying from 15 to 20 ft. We used driptorches to start the fire. We measured the following fuel moistures at the start of 

the burn: 1 hr = 12 percent, 10 hr = 8 percent, 100 hr = 10 percent, 1000 hr sound 

= 15.7 percent, 1000 hr rotten = 18.6 percent, 10000 hr sound = 21.4 percent, 

10000 hr rotten = 26.2 percent. At the start of the burn (1230), the temperature 

was 59 oF with relative humidity at 28 percent. The temperature increased to 60 oF 

and relative humidity decreased to 21 percent at 1500. This unit was burned first 

on the Smith Creek site to provide a fire break for the other burns. The burn lasted 

until 1910 when the temperature was 56 oF and relative humidity was 29 percent. 

Weather was partly cloudy with wind gusts from 5 to 10 mph upslope from the 

southwest. A total of 0.96 inches of rain had fallen on the site over the previous 

three weeks with no precipitation recorded within three days of the burn—it was 

warm (upper 60s) and windy the three days prior to burn.

Flame lengths averaged 1 to 3 ft in this unit with some passive crown fire behavior observed in small areas of the unit when tall subalpine fir trees crowned 

(torching caused flames more than 50 ft tall). Very little of the riparian area was 

burned. A hard frost (24 oF) had occurred four days prior to burn so the shrub fuels 

were dry enough to carry the fire in many areas. However, the extensive shade on 

the unit from the overstory tree cover and the dense subalpine fir undergrowth 

prevented extensive drying on this unit, so the prescribed fire was unable to visit 

many parts of the stand. The areas that burned with the most desirable intensity 

were those that received direct sunlight during the ignition. We tried to ignite most 

subalpine fir crowns regardless of tree size but few were dry enough to torch. 

Many embers were driven aloft by the fire, especially after some passive crown 

fires, but they rarely ignited fuels outside the unit boundary. The fire smoldered 

for seven days in this unit but was monitored by District personnel. Cost of the 

burning was estimated at $2900 or $290 per acre for the 10 acres.

This site was burned again by spotting from the Gash Creek Fire in August of 

2006. The wildfire burned under hot, dry summer conditions estimated at 90 o

F 

and 20 percent relative humidity. However, the fire only burned small portions of 

this unit (less than 15 percent) because of the lack of fine fuels that had been consumed by the 1996 prescribed fire. We estimate an additional 40 percent of the unit 

area was burned in the days after the prescribed burn indicating that the majority 

of desirable effects may take place in post-frontal combustion and smoldering
122 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.

Management Recommendations: This treatment, if done under the right conditions, can effectively 

simulate low intensity fires in whitebark pine forests. However, this is difficult 

to achieve. The fine fuels that carry the fire, mainly shrub, herbaceous, and litter, 

are rarely dry enough during the fall burning season to carry a fire. The shrub 

and herb foliage often need to be killed by a frost to drive moisture contents 

down low enough to foster fire spread. However, the antecedent weather needed 

to create these low moistures may dry surrounding lowland areas so extensively 

that fire managers might be reluctant to implement prescribed burns in the high 

elevation. Whitebark pine tree regeneration was marginal, indicating that even 

after 10 years, the site is not able to support substantial regeneration. We did 

not observe extensive nutcracker caching on this site, probably because the birds 

seem to prefer the open burned areas of the other units (2A and 2B).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 123
124 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 125
126 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 127

Discussion

Nearly all high and moderate intensity prescribed fire treatments combined 

with a cutting treatment effectively created desirable nutcracker caching habitat, as evidenced by the abundant nutcracker caching observed at nearly all sites. 

However, the whitebark pine regeneration that was expected to result from this 

caching has not yet materialized. Nearly all sites contain very few or no whitebark 

pine seedlings. This could be a result of many factors. First, we believe that many 

of the cached seeds have been reclaimed by the nutcrackers. We also feel that 

high rust mortality has reduced populations of cone-producing whitebark pine at 

or near our study areas so few seeds were actually available to be cached. At low 

levels of seed production, most seeds are consumed by the nutcrackers rather than 

forgotten and allowed to germinate. Next, severe site conditions could have killed 

many emerging seedlings. Our steep, high-mountain study sites experience deep 

snowpack, especially the Beaver Ridge site, which had more than 50 ft of snow 

in 1997. This heavy snowpack can “creep” down the slope and pull seedlings 

out of the ground. Moreover, most soils on our study site are highly erosive and 

spring snowmelts scoured the topsoil and washed away those seedlings rooted 

in it, especially in recently burned sites. Some researchers have identified a lag 

period of up to 40 years for the disturbed site to stabilize enough to allow whitebark pine to become established in upper subalpine zones (Agee and Smith 1984; 

Arno and Hoff 1990). Therefore, we believe that a 5-year evaluation period is too 

short to determine whitebark pine regeneration dynamics in these severe sites and 

a 10- or 20-year measurement might more accurately describe the success of our 

treatments. We recommend that sites where whitebark pine mortality is above 

20 percent and rust infection is above 50 percent be planted with rust-resistant 

seedlings to shorten this long lag between disturbance and regeneration.

We lost many control plots on three study sites to wildfires. The fires that swept 

through the Bitterroot National Forest in 2000 burned the entire Coyote Meadows 

study site rendering all 30 control plots ineffective. The 2001 Dry Fork fire on the 

Salmon-Challis National Forest consumed 3 of 10 control plots on the Blackbird 

Mountain site. Embers from the prescribed burn at Blackbird Mountain started 

small fires in four of the control plots. The 2006 Gash Creek fire burned 5 of 10 

control plots on the Smith Creek site and part of the Bear Overlook site (no control plots were burned). While a small wildfire at the Beaver Ridge site missed the 

control plots, it burned two cutting-only treatment units (3A and 2A; fig. 2e). The 

lack of sufficient control measurements makes it difficult to determine if changes 

measured on some of the treatment units were a result of the treatment and not of 

external factors such as climate. However, we found no significant difference in 

control plots for those sites that remained unburned (Keane and Parsons, in press).

Because of their lack of experience in burning high-elevation ecosystems, fire 

crews implemented prescribed burns under moister than desired conditions, thereby achieving less than desired fire intensity and severity. None of the fire crews 

had ever burned in the upper subalpine zone, so few wanted to risk burning in the 

desired dry conditions when the possibility of fire escape is high. In hindsight, as 

fire crews became familiar with burning in this high-elevation system, nearly all 

crews recognized that they could have easily achieved the higher severities. This 

may mean multiple treatments are needed to successfully realize burn plan objectives when experience is low or the consequences of escaped prescribed fires are 

severe.

Most treatments increased fuel loadings on most sites, especially the coarse 

woody debris (logs greater than 3 inches diameter). This was primarily because 

the prescribed fire burned through the bases of the abundant rust-killed whitebark 

pine snags within the treated stands. The newly fallen logs posed a low fuel hazard because they lacked fine fuels that contribute to increased fire spread. Their 

presence might actually improve the potential for whitebark pine regeneration by 
128 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.

providing safe sites for cached whitebark pine seed (Izlar 2007). Managers should 

inspect the level of whitebark pine snags in potential treatment areas to evaluate if 

the restoration treatment could also be a fuel reduction treatment.

Planting whitebark pine seedlings on the Beaver Ridge site was marginally 

effective in this study (approximately 30 percent survival after 5 years) because 

nursery techniques and planting guidelines for whitebark pine at the time of planting were not as refined as they are today (McCaughey and others 2009). Our 

seedlings were small and they were planted in mid-summer, just after snowmelt, 

so they had to survive three hot, dry months of drought. There is now extensive 

reference material for growing whitebark pine in nurseries and recommendations 

for planting whitebark pine (Scott and McCaughey 2006; McCaughey and others 

2009; Izlar 2007). Our success would have been improved using today’s technology. Planting should be done in mid-autumn and seedlings should be planted near 

structures, such as stumps, logs, and rocks, that provide stability from snowpack 

damage. Recently, Perkins (2004) found that grouse whortleberry had a positive 

effect and elk sedge had a negative effect on the growth and survival of planted 

whitebark pine seedlings. But Izlar (2007) found safe sites are more important to 

survival than sufficient whortleberry cover.

We recommend a fuel enhancement cutting implemented at least 1 year prior 

to a prescribed burn to ensure that burn objectives are fully realized. Adding cured 

slash to discontinuous fuelbeds facilitates burn effectiveness by providing additional fine fuel to aid fire spread into all areas of the treated stand and augment 

quick-drying fine fuel levels so the burn can be implemented in moister conditions. 

Prescribed burns had greater coverages (50 percent increase in burn coverage) and 

severities in fuel-enhanced stands. Fuel enhancement is an easy, inexpensive, and 

relatively rapid treatment that can be implemented by timber crews, fire crews, or 

contractors. We found that shrub and herbaceous fuels were much drier after the 

first hard frost in late summer or early autumn. Frost kills the aboveground foliage 

that allows the plants to take water from the soil so the aboveground plant structure 

can dry sufficiently for burning.

Ignition methods were important in this study. Most prescribed fires were 

ignited using strip head fires whose width was increased if higher fire intensities were desired. However, some study sites were so moist at ignition that even 

wide strips couldn’t generate our desired intensities. Using the terra-torch and 

heli-torch, we were able to burn large areas to achieve the high target intensities. 

However, because these techniques may not always be available, the drip-torch is 

the primary ignition technique. To be effective, these drip-torch ignitions should 

be done in dry conditions to generate sufficient intensities to kill undesirable tree 

species. If possible, multiple burns may also produce similar effects as one high 

intensity fire.

Summary and Conclusions

Whitebark pine will continue to decline across its range as extensive exotic 

blister rust infections, more frequent and severe mountain pine beetle epidemics, and fire exclusion-oriented management policies continue. An extensive and 

long-term, integrated research and management program is needed to maintain 

this valuable tree species on the high-mountain landscape in the western United 

States and Canada. Restoration of this precious ecosystem will depend on costeffective, coordinated efforts to

• conduct fundamental ecological research in whitebark ecosystems,

• develop methods to harvest seed from rust-resistant trees,

• refine nursery techniques to produce high quality, inexpensive rust-resistant 

seedlings for planting,
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 129

• create effective guidelines for planting rust-resistant seedlings and seeds,

• develop methods to plan and prioritize those areas in greatest need of whitebark 

pine restoration, and

• develop innovative prescribed burning and silvicultural cutting methods for 

restoring the keystone whitebark pine ecosystem (Keane and others, in press).

This management guide is a first step to develop restorative burning and cutting methods. Details in this report can be used to prioritize, plan, and implement 

restoration treatments in declining whitebark pine stands by providing a reference for determining effects of various prescribed burning and cutting treatments. 

Though we have not yet observed significant whitebark pine regeneration in many 

of our treated areas, we feel these techniques can be combined with planting of 

rust-resistant seedlings to effectively return whitebark pine to the landscape.

We recognize it will be impossible to implement the treatments explored in 

this study on all whitebark pine lands during this period of rapid decline. But, 

there will be critical whitebark pine forests that will require immediate and extensive proactive restoration, and the findings of this study will provide critical 

information for the successful planning and implementation of restoration activities. Since most whitebark pine forests are in protected areas such as National 

Parks, Wilderness Areas, and proposed Wilderness Areas that prohibit many of 

the treatments detailed in this report (Keane 2000), we feel wildland fire use (in 

essence, letting lightning-ignited fires burn under allowable parameters) will be 

the primary vehicle for treating deteriorating whitebark pine stands. No matter 

the treatment type, it will be critical to extensively monitor the effects of all direct 

(used in this study) and indirect (wildland fire use) treatments so we can refine 

and modify treatment guidelines in the future to account for local conditions 

and changing environments (for example, climate change and rust epidemics). 

Though the outlook may seem bleak for whitebark pine, recent exciting advances 

in research and many management successes will hopefully help secure the conservation of this keystone species.

References

Agee, J. K.; Smith, L. 1984. Subalpine tree reestablishment after fire in the 

Olympic Mountains, Washington. Ecology 65:810-819.

Arno, S. 1986. Whitebark pine cone crops—a diminishing source of wildlife 

food? Western Journal of Applied Forestry 1:92‐94.

Arno, S.; Hoff, R. 1990. Pinus albicaulis Engelm. Whitebark pine. Pages 

268‐279. In: Silvics of North America. Vol. I. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Arno, S.; Reinhardt, E.; Scott, J. 1993. Forest structure and landscape patterns 

in the subalpine lodgepole pine type: A procedure for quantifying past and 

present conditions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT‐294. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 50 p.

Arno, S. F.; Weaver, T. 1990. Whitebark pine community types and their patterns 

on the landscape. Pages 118‐130 In: Schmidt, W. C.; McDonald, K. J., 

comps. Proceedings—Symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: Ecology 

and management of a high mountain resource; 1989 March 29‐31; Bozeman, 

MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Blaustein, A. R; Dobson, A. 2006. Extinctions: A message from the frogs. 

Nature 439:143-144.
130 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.

Brown, J. K. 1974. Handbook for inventorying downed woody material. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. GTR-INT-16. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Cooper, S. V.; Neiman, K. E.; Roberts, D. W. 1991. Forest habitat types of 

northern Idaho: A second approximation. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-236. Ogden, 

UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station. 143 p.

Ferner, J. W. 1974. Habitat relationships of Tamiasciurus hudsonicus and 

Sciurus aberti in the Rocky Mountains. Southwest Naturalist 18:470‐473.

Forcella, F.; Weaver, T. 1980. Food production in Pinus albicaulis-Vaccinum 

scoparium association. Proceedings of Montana Academy of Science 

39:73-80.

Hann, Wendel J. 1990. Landscape and ecosystem-level management in 

whitebark pine ecosystems. Pages 335-340 In: Schmidt, W. C.; McDonald, 

K. J., comps. Proceedings—Symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: 

Ecology and management of a high mountain resource; 1989 March 29‐31; 

Bozeman, Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT‐270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Hoff, R. J.; Ferguson, D. E.; McDonald, G. I.; Keane, R. E. 2001. Strategies 

for managing whitebark pine in the presence of white pine blister rust. 

Pages 346-366 In: Whitebark pine communities: ecology and restoration. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 592 p.

Hutchins, H. E. 1994. Role of various animals in dispersal and establishment of 

whitebark pine in the Rocky Mountains, U.S.A. Pages 161-173 In: Schmidt, 

W. C.; Holtmeier, F.-K. comps. Proceedings: International workshop on 

subalpine stone pines and their environment: The status of our knowledge; 

1992 September 5-11; St. Moritz, Switzerland. Gen. Tech. Rep. INTGTR-309. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station.

Izlar, D. K. 2007. Assessment of whitebark pine seedling survival for Rocky 

Mountain plantings. MS thesis. University of Montana, Missoula. 76 p.

Keane, R. E. 2000. The importance of wilderness to whitebark pine research and 

management. Pages 84-93 In: Proceedings of the symposium: Wilderness 

science in a time of change conference. Volume 3: Wilderness as a place for 

scientific inquiry; 1999 May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSP-15-VOL-3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Keane, R. E. 2001. Successional dynamics: Modeling an anthropogenic threat. 

Pages 118‐130 In: Tomback, D. F.; Arno, S. F.; Keane, R. E., eds. Restoring 

whitebark pine ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Keane, R. E.; Arno, S. F. 1993. Rapid decline of whitebark pine in Western 

Montana: Evidence from 20-year re-measurements. Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry 8:44-47.

Keane, R. E.; Arno, S. F. 1996. Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) ecosystem 

restoration in western Montana. Pages 51-54 In: Arno, S. F.; Hardy, C. C., 

eds. The use of fire in forest restoration; 1995 September 14-16; Seattle, WA. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-341. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Keane, R. E.; Arno, S. F.; Brown, J. K.; Tomback, D. F. 1990. Modeling 

disturbances and conifer succession in whitebark pine forests. Pages 274‐288 

In: Schmidt, W. C.; McDonald, K. J., comps. Proceedings—Symposium on 

whitebark pine ecosystems: Ecology and management of a high mountain 

resource; 1989 March 29‐31; Bozeman, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 131

Keane, R. E.; Morgan, P.; Menakis, J. P. 1994. Landscape assessment of the 

decline of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) in the Bob Marshall Wilderness 

Complex, Montana, U.S.A.. Northwest Science 68:213-229.

Keane R. E.; Parsons, R. [In press]. Restoring whitebark pine forests of the 

northern Rocky Mountains, U.S.A. Ecological Restoration.

Keane R. E.; and others. [In press]. A range-wide restoration strategy for 

whitebark pine forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-XXX. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station.

Kendall, K.; Keane, R. E. 2001. The decline of whitebark pine. Pages 123-

145 In: Tomback, D. F.; Arno, S. F.; Keane, R. E., eds. Whitebark pine 

communities: Ecology and restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Lasko, R. J. 1990. Fire behavior characteristics and management implications in 

whitebark pine ecosystems. Pages 319-324 In: Schmidt, W. C.; McDonald, K. 

J., comps. Proceedings—Symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: Ecology 

and management of a high-mountain resource. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station.

Lorenz, T. J.; Aubry, C.; Shoal, R. 2008. A review of the literature on seed fate 

in whitebark pine and the life history traits of Clark’s Nutcracker and pine 

squirrels. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-742. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 62 p.

Lutes, D. C.; Keane, R. E.; Caratti, J. F.; Key, C. H.; Benson, N. C.; Sutherland, 

S.; Gangi, L. J. 2006. FIREMON: Fire effects monitoring and inventory 

system. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-164-CD. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station.

Mattson, D. J.; Blanchard, B. M.; Knight, R. R. 1991. Food habits of 

Yellowstone grizzly bears, 1977‐1987. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

9:1619‐1629.

Mattson, D. J.; Reinhart, D. P. 1990. Whitebark pine on the Mount Washburn 

Massif, Yellowstone National Park. Pages 106-117 In: Schmidt, W. C.; 

McDonald, K. J., comps. Proceedings—Symposium on whitebark pine 

ecosystems: Ecology and management of a high mountain resource; 1989 

March 29‐31; Bozeman, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

McCaughey, W. W.; Schmidt, W. C.; Shearer, R. C. 1985. Seed-dispersal 

characteristics of conifers in the Inland Mountain West. Pages 78-98 In: 

Shearer, R. comp. Proceedings—Conifer tree seed in the Inland Mountain 

West symposium; 1985 August 5-6; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

GTR-203. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station.

McCaughey, W. W.; Schmidt, W. C. 1990. Autecology of whitebark pine. 

Pages 85-95 In: Schmidt, W. C.; McDonald, K. J., comps. Proceedings—

Symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: Ecology and management of 

a high mountain resource; 1989 March 29‐31; Bozeman, MT. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station.

McCaughey, W. W.; Scott, G. L.; Izlar, K. L. 2009. Whitebark pine planting 

guidelines. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 24:163-166.

McCaughey, Ward W.; Weaver, T. 1990. Biotic and microsite factors affecting 

whitebark pine establishment. Pages 140-151 In: Schmidt, W. C.; McDonald, 

K. J., comps. Proceedings—Symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: 

Ecology and management of a high mountain resource; 1989 March 29‐31; 

Bozeman, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.
132 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010.

Minore, D. 1979. Comparative autecological characteristics of northwestern 

tree species: A literature review. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW‐87. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 28 p.

Morgan, P.; Bunting, S. C.; Keane, R. E.; Arno, S. F. 1994. Fire ecology of 

whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) forests in the Rocky Mountains, U.S.A.. 

Pages 136‐142 In: Schmidt, W. C.; Holtmeier, F.-K. comps. Proceedings: 

International workshop on subalpine stone pines and their environment: The 

status of our knowledge; 1992 September 5-11; St. Moritz, Switzerland. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-309. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Murray, M. P.; Bunting, S. C.; Morgan, P. 1995. Whitebark pine and fire 

suppression in small wilderness areas. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-320. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station,

Murray, M. P.; Bunting, S. C.; Morgan, P. 1998. Fire history of an isolated 

subalpine mountain range of the Intermountain Region, United States. 

Journal of Biogeography 25:1071-1080.

Norment, C. J. 1991. Bird use of forest patches in the subalpine forest-alpine 

tundra ecotone of the Beartooth Mountains, Wyoming. Northwest Science 

65(1):1-10.

Perkins, J. L. 2004. Pinus albicaulis seedling regeneration after fire. PhD 

dissertation. University of Montana, Missoula. 123 p.

Pfister, Robert D.; Kovalchik, B. L.; Arno, S. F.; Presby, R. C. 1977. Forest 

habitat types of Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT‐34. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 174 p.

Schmidt, W. C.; MacDonald, E. 1990. Proceedings—Symposium on whitebark 

pine ecosystems: Ecology and management of a high-mountain resource. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Scott, G. L.; McCaughey, W. W. 2006. Whitebark pine guidelines for planting 

prescriptions. Pages 84-90 In: Riley, L. E.; Dumroese, R. K.; Landis, T. 

D., tech. coords. National proceedings: Forest and Conservation Nursery 

Associations—2005. Proc. RMRS-P-43. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Steele, R.; Cooper, S. V.; Ondov, D. M.; Roberts, D. W.; Pfister, R.D. 1983. 

Forest habitat types of eastern Idaho-western Wyoming. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

INT-144. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 122 p.

Sund, S. K.; Tomback, D. F.; Hoffman, L. 1991. Post‐fire regeneration of Pinus 

albicaulis in western Montana: Patterns of occurrence and site characteristics. 

Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, 

Missoula, MT. 55 p.

Tomback, D. F. 1989. The broken circle: fire, birds and whitebark pine. Pages 

14-17 In: Walsh, T., ed. Wilderness and wildfire. Misc. Pub. 50. University of 

Montana, School of Forestry, Montana Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Tomback, D. F. 1998. Clark’s Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana). In: Poole, 

A.; Gill, F., eds. The birds of North America. No. 331. Philadelphia, PA: The 

Birds of North America, Inc. 24 p.

Tomback, D.; Arno, Stephen F.; Keane, R. E. 2001. Whitebark pine 

communities: Ecology and restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-232. 2010. 133

Tomback, D. F.; Hoffman, L. A.; Sund, S. K. 1990. Co-evolution of whitebark 

pine and nutcrackers: Implications for forest regeneration. Pages 118‐130 

In: Schmidt, W. C.; McDonald, K. J., comps. Proceedings—Symposium on 

whitebark pine ecosystems: Ecology and management of a high mountain 

resource; March 29‐31, 1989; Bozeman, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station.

Tomback, D. F.; Sund, S. K.; Hoffman, L. A. 1993. Post-fire regeneration of 

Pinus albicaulis: Height-age relationships, age structure, and microsite 

characteristics. Canadian of Forest Research 23:113-119.

Weaver, T.; Dale, D. 1974. Pinus albicaulis in central Montana: Environment, 

vegetation, and production. American Midland Naturalist 92:222-230.

Welles, J. M.; Norman, J. M. 1991. Instrument for indirect measurement of 

canopy architecture. Agronomy Journal 83:818-825.
Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

Rocky

 Mountain

 Research Station

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information 

and technology to improve management, protection, and use of the 

forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs of 

the National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and 

private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals. 

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems, range, 

forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, 

community sustainability, forest engineering technology, multiple use 

economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects and diseases. 

Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications may be found 

worldwide.

Station Headquarters

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 W Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

(970) 498-1100

Research Locations

Reno, Nevada

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Rapid City, South Dakota

Logan, Utah

Ogden, Utah

Provo, Utah

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, 

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all 

or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. 

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

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, 

Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, 

DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA 

is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Flagstaff, Arizona

Fort Collins, Colorado

Boise, Idaho

Moscow, Idaho

Bozeman, Montana

Missoula, Montana
Management Guide to Ecosystem Restoration Treatments: RMRS-GTR-232

Whitebark Pine Forests of the Northern Rocky Mountains, U.S.A.

Printer:

This is the spine text. 

Center on spine