1

(continued on page 2)

Inside• Research Highlights ................. (p. 4)• Highlighting Researchers ...... (p. 10)• Glossary ................................... (p. 14)• New Publications ............... (p. 13,16)

Finding Common Ground:Montana Forest Restoration Committee

USDA Forest Service: Rocky Mountain Research Station, Bitterroot National Forest, Region 1 and the University of Montana College of Forestry and Conservation

Sharon Ritter, Research/Management Coordinator and ECO-Report Editor, BEMRP and the Human Dimensions ScienceProgram, RMRS, Stevensville, MT

What in the world made Brian Kahn think he couldget consensus among 34 people representing timber,environmental, government, and off-highway vehiclegroups—especially when the topic was forestrestoration? “Actually,” he said, “ I didn’t believe wecould get 100% consensus. But we did.”

Brian is the head of Artemis Common Ground inHelena, Montana. He hosts the weekly YellowstonePublic Radio show, “Home Ground: Changes andChoices in the American West,” and is skilled in workingwith community-based conservation efforts.

In 2006, Dave Bull, Supervisor of the BitterrootNational Forest, hired Brian to assess whether mediationcould resolve objections to a controversial fuel reductionand forest restoration project. Brian conducted individualinterviews with representatives of the various sides, andconcluded that things were too far gone for mediation towork. However, according toBrian, “I heard through thatexperience that there wascommon ground. I felt that if youstart with an agreement that ourpublic lands are in trouble, if youtook restoration as the issue, therewas a shot that you could get broad agreement on what itshould look like on the ground. That’s why Artemisproposed the initial meeting.”

Brian approached Mary Mitsos of the National ForestFoundation and in August 2006 they convened a smallgroup representing timber industry, conservation groups,national forests, and state forestry. He chose the NationalForest Foundation because it was a neutral party thatunderstood the issues, and collaboration is a big part ofwhat the Foundation does.

Restoration Principle #5. Reestablish fire as a natural process on thelandscape. Old growth pine stand after understory burn, Swan Valley,MT. (Photo by Dave Powell, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org)

The group modeled their work after successfulcollaboration efforts elsewhere, including the Front

Range Fuels TreatmentPartnership Round Table inColorado and Tongass FuturesRound Table in Alaska. Mary said,“What we wanted to do wasdevelop a vision for westernMontana.”

The small group sought wider representation,eventually agreeing on 34 people who, according toMary, “were knowledgeable, had a long-terminvolvement withthe NationalForest System,were consideredkey players, and

It takes some groups years to makeagreements through collatoration. Thisgroup did it in nine months.

2

Common Ground . . . ( from page 1)

(continued on page 6)

Restoration Principle #8. Improve terrestrial and aquatichabitat and connectivity. Elk. (Photo by Terry Spivey, USDAForest Service, Bugwood.org)

Montana Forest RestorationPrinciples

1) Restore functioning ecosystems by enhancingecological processes.

2) Apply adaptive management approach.3) Use the appropriate scale of integrated

analysis to prioritize and design restorationactivities.

4) Monitor restoration outcomes.5) Reestablish fire as a natural process on the

landscape.6) Consider social constraints and seek public

support for reintroducing fire on thelandscape.

7) Engage community and interested parties inthe restoration process.

8) Improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat andconnectivity.

9) Emphasize ecosystem goods and services andsustainable land management.

10) Integrate restoration with socioeconomicwell-being.

11) Enhance education and recreation activitiesto build support for restoration.

12) Protect and improve overall watershed health,including stream health, soil quality andfunction and riparian function.

13) Establish and maintain a safe road and trailsystem that is ecologically sustainable.

had the ability to listen, hear, and learn.” This groupbecame the Montana Forest Restoration Working Group.

The group published the “vision” that Mary spoke ofin September 2007 in a report that can be found atwww.montanarestoration.org. The group agreed on 13principles of Montana forest restoration (see Sidebar)and an implementation plan.

Where did these principles come from? “We startedby brainstorming what Brian called ‘restoration visioncategories,’” said Marnie Criley, representing a groupcalled Wildlands CPR and chair of the Vision andPrinciples subcommittee of the Montana ForestRestoration Working Group. “We came up with 60 ofthese and we wanted to be sure to address all of the onesbrought up by the group.” The group then referred toother similar lists and used them to refine its list, selectlanguage already working for other groups, and be sureall possibilities were covered.

Marnie estimates they spent 44 hours insubcommittee meetings working on the vision andprinciples, coming back to the full group for approvalthroughout the process. They started with the easiestones to give people a chance to have success early on andget to know and trust each other before tackling harderones. For them, the easiest were adaptive managementand monitoring (#2 and #4). “The fire ones, numbers 5and 6, were hardest,” she said.

It takes some groups years to make agreementsthrough collaboration. This group did it in nine months.The group’s Code of Conduct was important to itssuccess. It included individual commitments such as“help create a respectful and productive workingclimate” and “value one another’s experiences.” Thegroup also committed to making decisions by consensus,defined as “I can live with it.” If someone couldn’t livewith it, she or he had to come up with something thatwould help the group make progress toward a solutionthat would work. Sometimes, the two strongest opposingvoices met separately to work out a solution.

Mary stated that “people put in a heck of a lot oftime and effort to get a product that everyone could agree

ECO-ReportPublished by the

Rocky Mountain Research Station800 E. Beckwith St., Missoula, MT 59801

(406) 777-7416

Editor/Writer: Sharon Ritter

BEMRP is part of the Human DimensionsScience Program of the Rocky Mountain

Research Station.For more information, see BEMRP’s website at

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecopartner/.Also visit RMRS’s website at

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

3

BEMRP Staff Note

Ward McCaughey stands in front of two-age shelterwood treatments inlodgepole pine stands at the Tenderfoot Experimental Forest on theLewis and Clark National Forest. This is another project BEMRP hassupported that has applicability throughout the Northern Rockies.(Photo by Matt Wotherspoon)

Greg Jones, Research Forester and BEMRP Program Leader,and Sharon Ritter, Research/Management Coordinator,Human Dimensions Science Program, RMRS, Missoula, MT

Sometimes a name says it all, and sometimes a nameis just a name. Joe’s Income Tax and BookkeepingService probably does just what it says. On the otherhand, there’s AT&T. Until 2005, the initials stood forAmerican Telephone & Telegraph, but in the last coupleof decades when you saw “AT&T,” you didn’t think ofthe telegraph. You thought about other services andproducts—cell phones, fiber optics, and wireless internet.

The Bitterroot Ecosystem Management ResearchProject is kind of like AT&T in that research we conductreflects more than our name implies. The executivecommittee has Bitterroot National Forest representatives,but our decisions on what research to conduct follow ourmission statement: “Strengthen the scientific theory andpractice of managing Rocky Mountain ecosystems.” Thisapplies not only to the Forest Service, but also to thepublic and other resource managers.

Much of the research we conduct does not take placeon the Bitterroot National Forest. More importantly, allof the research we conduct applies elsewhere and hasbeen used by managers to benefit private and publiclands. Here are just a few examples of BEMRP-fundedmulti-disciplinary research valued locally and elsewhere.

BEMRP’s first big research project did start locally atthe Lick Creek Demonstration/Research Forest in 1993.Following a prescription designed jointly with scientists,the Forest conducted thinning and prescribed firetreatments to reduce probability of stand-replacement fireand improve tree health. Monitoring shows thatphysiological performance of trees improved, and both

BEMRP: Beyond the Bitterroot

canopy and surface fuels were reduced. These results areapplicable elsewhere in dry ponderosa pine forests.

Managers throughout the Intermountain West hope toprotect and enhance rare old-growth stands, so they’reinterested in results of another BEMRP study. This one istaking place in an old-growth ponderosa pine/westernlarch stand that historically experienced frequent fireregimes but has been at increased risk of insectinfestation and high intensity fires due to fire exclusion.The study demonstrated that thinning and prescribed fireresults in improved vigor of old trees and reducedprobability of stand-replacement fire.

Due to concern over global climate change, there isworld-wide interest in how we can reduce our use ofsequestered carbon and decrease our release of carbonand other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. A studyin the Bitterroot looked at the quantity, cost, and carbonbalance associated with utilization of biomass from fuelreduction and forest health restoration treatments. Theconcepts and methodology are applicable West-wide.This study led to working with the Northern Region todevelop a way to estimate net carbon effects of fuelreduction and restoration treatments.

BEMRP modeling efforts have found applicationbeyond the Northern Region. The private Vermejo ParkRanch in New Mexico is using MAGIS, SIMPPLLE, andFLAMMAP models to look at long-range benefits of fueland forest restoration treatments to the ecosystem.Models developed with BEMRP funding have been usedfor planning projects in Alaska, California, New Mexico,Colorado, and elsewhere in Montana.

(continued on page 6)Banding a chipping sparrow to study the effects of invasive plants onsongbird breeding productivity. (Photo by Chris Templeton)

4

Research Highlights

Alan Watson, Research Social Scientist, Aldo LeopoldWilderness Research Institute, RMRS, Missoula, MT

Picture a favorite area where you hike, hunt, rideyour 4-wheeler, seek solitude and renewal, or maybe justappreciate for its wildlife habitat. How would you feel ifthat area was burned over, the understory trees werethinned out, or a road built through it? Would you feelthat your favorite area has been harmed or protected?

We’ve been conducting research on the FlatheadIndian Reservation in Montana to understand the valuesthat Tribal and non-Tribal members attach to the MissionMountains Tribal Wilderness and its bordering 22,000-acre Buffer Zone (see map above). To successfullyimprove forest health within that Buffer Zone and restorefire in the Wilderness, the managing agency and publicmust work together to find solutions to increasinglythreatening fuel buildups. We used qualitative, culturallysensitive research and a computer-based mappingexercise to understand tradeoffs Reservation residentsdescribe in relation to potential Buffer Zone fueltreatment actions.

Mapping Social and Cultural Valuesin the Mission Mountains

The Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness and Tribal Buffer Zoneextend north to south along the eastern border of the FlatheadIndian Reservation. (Map prepared by Brett Davis)

This composite map (across five layers of meanings described bycommunity residents) for overall averaged results (Jenks method, 10categories) demonstrates how the scale and intensity of social andcultural values can be mapped for a landscape. (Map prepared byBrett Davis)

Fire management focuses on reinstating natural fireregimes through fuel treatment—thinning and burning—and allowing fire to return to function, as nearly aspossible, in its natural ecological role. Forest managersuse thinning and burning to reduce fuel loads so thatnatural fire regimes can be allowed to operate. Instillingtrust and accomplishing resource management objectivesrequire a high degree of collaboration and participatoryplanning with the public. From previous BEMRPresearch on the Bitterroot National Forest, we know thata key contributor to trust in fire and fuel managementdecisions is procedural justice, or the perceived fairness,equity, and legitimacy of decisions managers make.People want to be assured that managers understand thevalues they attach to forest lands and that these values areat least considered in decision making.

(continued on page 12)

5

Research Highlights

Wildfire, Research, and a Climate Station

Ward McCaughey, Research Forester, Forests and WoodlandsEcosystems Science Program, RMRS, Missoula, MT

In August, the human-caused Tin Cup Fire took off afew miles to the north of where the Fire SciencesLaboratory crew was busy collecting fuels data on theTrapper Bunkhouse study site west of Darby. The firedemonstrated how quickly wildfire can escape initialattack in untreated stands, especially under extremely dryconditions, and how treated areas helped moderate fireintensities, especially important around homes. Thesekinds of treatments are a goal of the Trapper BunkhouseLand Stewardship Project where BEMRP is conductingresearch to document the ecological effects as well as theeffectiveness of fuel treatments in the wildland-urbaninterface.

As the BEMRP representative from the Forests andWoodlands Ecosystems Science Program, I participatedon the Trapper Bunkhouse Treatment Development Teamsince 2004. This team included RMRS scientists andBitterroot National Forest managers tasked withdeveloping a study design to test fuel reductiontreatments. Early in the year we installed temporary pilotplots to determine within and between stand variabilityfor early grouping of proposed treatment units anddetermine statistical reliability of the study design. Wethen worked with Mick Harrington’s and SteveSutherland’s crews from the Fire Sciences Laboratoryand Forest personnel to establish a grid of permanentplots in proposed treatment units, then collected

overstory, regeneration, and understory data. When allpre-treatment data have been collected, we’ll be ready ifand when the Forest can implement the treatments, whichwe hope will happen in 2008.

Our program crew included two volunteer studentsfrom Germany—Johannes Kopp and Andreas Roeger—who were studying forest engineering at the University ofApplied Forest Sciences of Rottenburg, Germany. Otherson the crew included Janelle Anderson, a work/studystudent from the University of Montana, and two termemployees—Karen Stockmann and Matt Burbank.

We have another project at the Tenderfoot CreekExperimental Forest on the Lewis and Clark NationalForest where we study the lodgepole pine forest type (seehttp://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecology/demo/tenderfoot/).Because Tenderfoot is known for its past and currentresearch efforts, it has been selected along with theFraser Experimental Forest in Colorado, Sierra AnchaExperimental Forest in Arizona, and Glacier LakesEcosystem Experiments Site in Wyoming to receive a$36,000 International Cooperative Program (ICP) LevelII specialized climate station. This climate station willmonitor and measure critical loads of nitrogen, sulfur,and ozone, as well as standard meteorological parameterssuch as wind speed, wind direction, solar radiation,precipitation, relative humidity, and temperature. Bob

Andreas Roeger taking a diameter measurement on a Douglas-fir in aresearch unit in the Leavens Gulch area of the Bitterroot NationalForest in July of 2007. (Photo by Ward McCaughey)

Matt Burbank (right) explaining understory tree measurementprocedures to Johannes Kopp in a research unit in the Leavens Gulcharea of the Bitterroot National Forest, in July of 2007. (Photo by WardMcCaughey) (continued on page 15)

6

Common Ground . . . ( from page 2)

Restoration Principle #9. Emphasize ecosystem goods and servicesand sustainable land management. Stream improvement, KootenaiNational Forest. (Photo by Paul Hooper, USDA Forest Service,Bugwood.org)

on.” Bob Ekey, representing The Wilderness Society,agreed and expressed his appreciation that “a lot ofpeople really rose to the challenge to stretch themselves.Many of them had never really sat down at the tabletogether before.”

Brian said that dealing with hard issues likereintroducing fire requires focusing on areas ofagreement, not disagreement: “Think of two overlappingcircles, with the overlap representing areas of agreement.The more people talked and really listened, the morethey found that the overlap, the area of agreement, wasbigger than they thought.”

“Where the rubber hits the road,” said Mary, “is theimplementation, what it looks like on the ground.” Thenext step will be to apply the collaborative model andprinciples on some actual projects. They want to replicatethe diversity of their group within local working groups,and find projects that will show results fairly quickly.

Julia Altemus, representing the Montana LoggingAssociation, said that getting a project in its early stageswill be the key to success. That means “bringing an areathat is ‘out of balance’ to the Forest Service as a project,an area that hasn’t already started in the NEPA process.”Julia said that a bundled project is preferable—forexample, one that combines fisheries improvements, hassome timber harvest, and improves roads and trails.

The group selected the Lolo and Bitterroot NationalForests for pilot projects. According to Mary, “The timeis right. People are willing to come to the table to findsolutions.” Brian, Mary, Julia, and Bob agree that successin these forest-level efforts would be getting good

projects designed and implemented on the ground. Thatincludes finding funding to get the work done. Nonprofitsand the Forest Service’s Regional Office are interested inproviding some funding, but eventually they would likeCongress to step up to the plate to provide serioussupport on a much broader scale.

Mary feels that success at the local level will comebecause there is a high level of trust in the representativesthat were on the original working group. Thanks to them,she expects a high level of buy-in to the forest restorationprinciples. The group, now called the Montana ForestRestoration Committee, will oversee these local efforts.They hope to see their hard work pay off, and becausethey set the example on collaborating and have provideda carefully designed framework, it just might.

Beyond the Bitterroot . . . (from page 3)

BEMRP-funded social science research has focusedon understanding how people interact with the ForestService and how the agency can more effectivelycommunicate with the public. Research that started in theBitterroot Valley on understanding the meanings peopleplace on public lands has since expanded to the Flatheadand Blackfoot Reservations, the Kootenai NationalForest, and will appear in a textbook for land managerselsewhere interested in using this methodology.Similarly, BEMRP work to develop a toolkit for off-highway travel planning was circulated nationally by ourWashington Office and a paper summarizing findings onthe historical, ecological and social implications of damsin the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness was presented at aninternational conservation congress.

Research on invasive weeds and biocontrol impactson small mammals has documented previouslyunrecognized side effects of biological control in natural

systems, examined ways to reduce those nontarget effectsin biological control programs, and illustrated how tomitigate this problem within knapweed-infested systemsin the West. This information is applicable to the practiceof biological control worldwide.

Other research showed that spotted knapweed hasvery significant impacts on native ecosystems byreducing abundance and richness of native plants andinvertebrates and by reducing recruitment of nativesongbirds. Information gained is directly applicable tograsslands and savannahs of the northern RockyMountains but has generic ramifications forunderstanding how invasive weeds impact native systemsacross North America.

The Bitterroot Ecosystem Management ResearchProject is more than its name implies. We are proud ofthe quality of multi-disciplinary research we haveproduced by focusing research locally but with an eye towidespread applications, by taking advantage of long-term study sites, and by fostering relationships with ourpartners.

7

Research Highlights

Mick Harrington, Research Forester, Fires, Fuels, and SmokeScience Program, RMRS, Fire Sciences Lab, Missoula, MT;Erin Noonan, Fire Ecologist, Systems for EnvironmentalManagement, Missoula, MT

Many land managers are attempting to lessen theprobability of severe wildfire behavior and impacts,especially near communities, by manipulating canopyand surface fuel characteristics. Various interest groupshave questioned the value of fuels treatments. In reality,apart from fire exposure when a real fire went through atreated stand, effectiveness of fuel treatments has notbeen quantifiable until the recent development ofprotocols for canopy fuels assessment and crown firebehavior modeling.

The Bitterroot National Forest recently implementedthe Sheafman Fuels Reduction Project to reduce theprobability for high intensity crown fire impacting thewatershed and community of Pinesdale, Montana. Muchof the Sheafman treatment area was heavily logged acentury ago, resulting in a dense Douglas-fir stand.

We conducted a study to evaluate pre-and post-treatment fuels at the Sheafman project and model theeffects of the treatments on anticipated fire behavior.Fuels treatments within the 475-acre project area werecalled either understory cutting (UC) where only smalltrees were cut, or overstory thinning (OT) which left asemi-open stand with 50 to 80 large trees/acre. Weestablished 40 plots for pre-treatment (2002) and post-treatment (2004) sampling of fuels and stand structure.We then used fire behavior models to evaluate the pre-and post-treatment level of wildfire hazard and assess theeffect of the fuel treatments.

What Kind of Cutting and ThinningCan Prevent Crown Fires?

With the fuels treatment, the densities in OT plotswere reduced from 580 to 73 trees/acre, while the UCplots were reduced from 380 to 154 trees/acre becauseonly small trees were cut. There also were changes incanopy fuel base height and canopy fuel quantity whichdetermine, in part, the initiation and spread of crown fire.The higher the crown base and the lower the canopy fuelsamounts, the less the chance of crown fire. The canopybase heights were raised from 17 to 32 ft in the OT plotscompared to an increase in the UC plots from 12 to 19 ft.The high, pre-treatment stand densities producedsubstantial canopy fuel quantities that were reduced by75% in the OT plots but only 15% in the UC plots. Pre-treatment surface fuel loadings averaged 4 tons/acre andincreased by 1 and 4 tons/acre due to thinning in the UCplots and OT plots, respectively. Surface wind speeds(measured at eye level), which are affected by standdensity and which, in turn, greatly influence fireintensity, are expected to double in the more open standof the OT plots but increase only by 25% in the UC plots.

Based on these changes, the model predicted that fireintensity measured by surface fire spread rates and flamelengths wouldn’t change significantly as a result oftreatments until tree-top wind speeds exceed 20 mph. Thetorching index (wind speed at which a surface fire willbecome a crown fire) exceeded 80 mph for the OTtreatment for both pre- and post-treatment, a conditionwhich is highly unlikely. For the UC treatment, the meantorching index was raised from 27 mph to 50 mph withtreatment, changing the likelihood of torching from

(continued on page 12)

Fuel reduction treatment in the Sheafman Creek drainage. The left photo shows pre-treatment conditions, and the right photo shows the same areaafter treatment. (Photos by Mick Harrington)

8

Rafal Zwolak, KerryForesman, and ElizabethCrone, Division of BiologicalSciences, University ofMontana, Missoula, MT;Dean Pearson and YvetteOrtega, Wildlife Biologists,Wildlife and TerrestrialHabitats Science Program,RMRS, Missoula, MT

Wildlife, evenminiscule mice, can playan important role in forestregeneration andcomposition byconsuming seeds,seedlings, and saplings.Mice can, through sheernumbers, consume atremendous number ofseeds. We wanted to learnif deer mice could affecthow ponderosa pineforests regenerate afterfire.

In the late 1800s, ponderosa pines commonlyformed open, park-like forests at lower elevations in theWest. Today, these forests are often overrun with shade-tolerant Douglas-fir trees that suppress the pines andincrease the risk for stand-replacing fires. Historically,frequent, low-intensity fires were thought to maintainthe dominance of ponderosa pines by periodically killingDouglas-firs. Although efforts are underway to return

Are Mice Eating Up All the Pine Seeds?

fire to the landscape to restoreponderosa pine forests and reduce therisk of stand-replacing fires,widespread house building aroundforests limits the use of fire andtherefore limits the modern role of firein these systems. This exclusion of firerequires that we understand how otherforces may influence the compositionof trees and rate of succession.

In the West,small mammals likedeer mice arevoracious seedpredators that couldgreatly influence treeregeneration andforest composition.Deer mice numbersincrease followingdisturbance and deermice tend to selectlarger seeds oversmaller ones.

Therefore, they could affect both the rate of treeregeneration following disturbance and the relativeabundance of Douglas-fir versus ponderosa pines bytargeting the larger ponderosa pine seeds. To betterunderstand the role of these mice in affecting treeregeneration and tree species composition followingdisturbance, we monitored deer mouse populations

(above) Rafal Zwolak recording data onseedling establishment in a pair ofexperimental cages. In 2007, seedlingsemerged only in those cages that excludedmice. The experiment will be continued in2008. (Photo by Leigh Ann Reynolds)(left) Don’t be misled by their smallstature! Abundant and voracious, deermice are capable of exerting strongecological influences. (Photo by RafalZwolak)

(continued on page 12)

Meet BEMRP’s Executive CommitteeBEMRP is a multi-disciplinary partnership that brings together scientists from the U.S. Forest Service RockyMountain Research Station and the University of Montana, together with managers from the Bitterroot NationalForest and Northern Region.

Greg Jones—RMRS Human Dimensions Science ProgramKrista Gebert—RMRS Human Dimensions Science Program

Mick Harrington—RMRS Fire, Fuels, and Smoke Science ProgramWard McCaughey—RMRS Forest and Woodland Ecosystems Science Program

Alan Watson—Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research InstituteDean Pearson—RMRS Wildlife and Terrestrial Habitats Science Program

Jim Burchfield—The University of Montana College of Forestry and ConservationSue Heald—Bitterroot National Forest

Chuck Oliver—Bitterroot National ForestDan Ritter—Bitterroot National Forest

Kerry McMenus—Northern Region Office

Research Highlights

9

Research Highlights

What Pollutes More: Burning Logging ScrapsOn-Site or Hauling Them to Boilers?

A truck dumps biomass to be ground for use as fuel in burners innorthern California. (Photo by Han-Sup Han)

A grinder in northern Idaho reduces biomass to the size needed foruse in biomass burners. (Photo by Han-Sup Han)

(continued on page 14)

Greg Jones, Research Forester, Human Dimensions ScienceProgram, RMRS Missoula, MT; Dan Loeffler, ResearchAssociate, College of Forestry and Conservation, TheUniversity of Montana, Missoula, MT

Publicity and debate about global climate change hasfueled interest in the role forests and forest managementactivities play in carbon sequestration and greenhouse gasemissions. Our previous ECO-Report contained an articleon greenhouse gas emissions released when woodybiomass from forest residues are used for energy (seepage 9 of 2007 ECO-Report at www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecopartner/ecoreport.shtml). That article compared theoverall emissions of: 1) transporting woody residues fromforest treatments to burn in a boiler for heat energy(including emissions from collecting, chipping, andhauling) with 2) leaving those residues on-site anddisposing of them by open pile burning and using fossilfuels (fuel oil or natural gas) instead of biomass in theboilers. For the Bitterroot Valley, the results showed thatfollowing the first option (rather than the second option)would reduce average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by50%, particulate matter emissions less than 10 microns insize (PM-10) by 75%, and methane emissions by 90%.

These average reductions in emissions computed forbiomass use in the Bitterroot Valley indicate that usingthese forest residues for energy can substantially reduceboth greenhouse gas and particulate emissions. However,we wondered how increasing distances for haulingbiomass affects these results. In other words, to whatextent do the increased diesel emissions emitted bylonger haul distances overshadow the decreasedemissions of burning this biomass in a boiler for heat

energy instead of pile-burning the biomass in the forestand relying on fossil fuels for the equivalent heat energy?

We also wondered about the wisdom of expendingfossil fuels to collect and deliver biomass for heat energy.Recently there have been scientific reports andnewspaper articles criticizing the use of agricultureproducts such as corn to produce ethanol for fuel becausethey provide a low energy return for the required energyinputs. We wondered how this woody forest biomass forheat energy stacks up with regard to this question,especially as haul distance increases.

We used the spatial landscape treatment/transportation model, MAGIS, to analyze how emissionsand fossil fuel energy (diesel) consumption change withincreasing average distance of hauling biomass from theforest to the site where biomass energy is used. To add

(CO2) PM10

47-mile average haul distance:Harvest & Grind Activity 2.5% 3.0%Hauling 1.0% 1.5%

Total 3.5% 4.5%

85-mile average haul distance:Harvest & Grind Activity 2.5% 3.0%Hauling 2.0% 2.5%

Total 4.5% 5.5%

Diesel emissions as a percentage of total emissions inthe biomass-for-energy option.

10

Highlighting Researchers

KRISTA GEBERT

The “Spotlight”...highlighting researchers at work

“The Beauty of Economics”

Janie Canton-Thompson (left, former ECO-Reporteditor) and Krista Gebert. (Photo by Carol Pyle)

Sharon Ritter, Research/ManagementCoordinator, Social, Economics, andDecision Sciences Program, RMRS,Missoula, MT

“Economics is the science ofallocating scarce resources amongunlimited wants.” That was KristaGebert’s response when I askedher to define economics for me.Having taught several economicsclasses at the University ofMontana after graduate school,Krista had the definition down toits essence. As an economist withRMRS in Missoula, Krista applieseconomics to a variety of scarceforest and human resources. Kristais the newest executive committeemember of BEMRP, representingthe Human Dimensions ScienceProgram of RMRS.

Krista grew up in and around Dillon, Montana. Sheinherited a strong work ethic from her parents. After highschool, Krista attended two years of college in Dillon inbusiness administration before getting married andstarting her family. Her husband, John, is a math andphysics teacher. During the early years they lived inHelena, then Chester, Montana. She stayed home withher young sons but she always knew she wouldeventually go back to school and work. John preparedher by teaching her trigonometry and pre-calculus toboost her math skills. Then a great teaching job came upfor John in Missoula.

When her youngest son was 4, Krista went back toschool. I asked her why she went into economics. Shesaid she started in business classes, figuring she wouldgo into accounting. “But I felt sick to my stomach everytime I opened up my accounting book.” However,economics excited her, and she had always been good atmath and science, so despite there being “no jobs” in thatfield, at least not in Missoula, John encouraged her toswitch. So she went for it.

Landing a job with RMRS was “serendipitous.” In1996, during her last week of graduate school, sheapplied for a job at the Forestry Sciences Laboratory in atemporary, entry-level economist position. Her

supervisor, Erv Schuster, servedas her mentor. He gave her lotsof responsibility early on, andurged her to move up. “Erv wasgreat. He hired people whocould do the job, then left youalone to do it.” Krista heldseveral temporary and termpositions until 2000, thenmoved over to the University fora year and a half working for theBureau of Business andEconomic Research. Sheenjoyed her time with theBureau and it was not easymaking the decision to go backto RMRS when a permanent jobopened up. However, she lovesworking for the Forest Serviceand with all the great people she

has met over the years, “I’m impressed with the caliberof people I’ve met and work with in the Forest Serviceand Department of Interior. They’re dedicated, hard-working, and really involved.”

Krista’s research in the past few years has focusedon fire economics, especially wildland fire suppressionand suppression costs. One piece of that is providingforecasts for the Forest Service and Department ofInterior on what they’re likely to spend on firesuppression for the coming year. The forecasts producedearly in the fiscal year in collaboration with researchersat the Southern Research Station use climate informationand time trends to make predictions of suppressionexpenditures for the upcoming fire season. During thesummer, personnel at the National Interagency FireCenter in Boise forecast anticipated fire activity usingtheir best professional judgment. Those predictions thengo into the economics models that Krista uses toproduce monthly updates of anticipated suppressionspending. Krista finds her work both rewarding andchallenging. “I can email the forecasts of suppressionexpenditures to the Washington Office at 5:30 at nightand the next morning I see it in the paper.” This is nerve-wracking (the challenge), but also evidence that herwork is actually getting used (the reward). Krista’s

(continued on page 13)

11

( y )

Sharon Ritter, Research/ManagementCoordinator and ECO-Report Editor,BEMRP, RMRS, Stevensville, MT

Ward McCaughey has spent99% of his career in forestryresearch. It appears the aptitudetest he took in high school wasright; he should be in forestry.Ward is a research forester in theForests and WoodlandsEcosystems Program for RMRS.He has been on BEMRP’sexecutive committee since 2002.However, his association withBEMRP goes back to its inceptionin 1994 when he worked for ClintCarlson, Project Leader and theoriginal lead scientist for the team that initiated BEMRP.Ward’s association with the Rocky Mountain ResearchStation goes back to 1974 when he supervised summercrews.

Ward grew up in Pierre, the capitol of South Dakota,a small city surrounded by farms, ranches, and MissouriRiver breaks. He fished the Missouri, hunted deer andantelope in the breaks and ranches, and pheasants in thefields. He worked summers either for his father’s floorcovering business or on ranches. This background gavehim a love of the outdoors, but it was vacationing in theponderosa pine forests of the Black Hills that stimulatedhis interest in forestry.

For college, he headed west to the University ofMontana in Missoula for his bachelors and masters, andMontana State University in Bozeman for his PhD. Whilemajoring in forestry at the University of Montana, Wardworked summers and falls for Wyman Schmidt and RayShearer of the Intermountain Research Station. It was along-lasting relationship, morphing from work as aseasonal summer crew leader to mixing work andschooling to conduct his master’s research on subalpinefir and Engelmann spruce, and later his PhD research onwhitebark pine.

His study of whitebark pine was one of the first tolook at factors affecting natural and artificialregeneration. He also worked on whitebark pine cone andseed studies, again relating his research to naturalregeneration and nursery problems. The mid-1980s

Highlighting Researchers

The “Spotlight”...highlighting researchers at work

“Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff”WARD MCCAUGHEY

One of Ward’s summertime fish sampling excursionsin western Montana. (Photo by Randy Boehnke)

marked the beginning of interestin forest ecology approaches towhitebark pine research, withStation scientists including Ward,Steve Arno, and Bob Keanelooking into this formerlyunderappreciated species. Wardcontinues his interest in whitebarkpine research. He also continuesmonitoring spruce/fir forests hestudied while conducting hismaster’s research. “These long-term studies are key tounderstanding forest ecology andeffects of management activities,” Ward takes special pride in

his lodgepole pine research on theTenderfoot Creek Experimental Forest located on theLewis and Clark National Forest. The Research Stationconducted silvicultural treatments there in 1999 and 2000to study the effects of restoring two-age lodgepole pineforest structure similar to what historically occurred onmuch of the area. However, work toward conductingthose treatments actually began in 1988 when he, WymanSchmidt, the Northern Region Office, and the Lewis andClark National Forest planned research there. Theyassembled a team representing several National Forests,the University of Montana, Montana State University,Rocky Mountain Research Station, Northern RegionOffice, and Natural Resources Conservation Service.One of the key issues in the West is water, so theyinstalled 10 flumes and collected several years of waterquantity and quality data prior to doing any cutting. Theymeasure stream flow, sediment production, watertemperature and nutrients, and other measures of waterquality and quantity. They also set up two SNOTEL sites(SNOw TELemetry) for monitoring snowpack andrelated climatic data. The SNOTEL sites included snowpillows, which are 10-ft diameter bladders that measurewater content of snow.

Ward has found it very rewarding taking TenderfootCreek EF from an experimental forest with no studies tothe level where so many people want to use the site forhydrological, climatological, and ecological studies. Said

(continued on page 13)

12

Research Highlights

On the Reservation, we found that the primarymeanings Tribal members associate with the Buffer Zoneare wilderness protection, wildlife and water quality,access and functional attachments (such as a source ofmedicinal plants), recreation and scenic values, andpersonal and cultural meanings symbolic of long-termassociations with nature in the Northern Rockies. Weused a computer-based mapping exercise to develop 154community resident maps of important places in theBuffer Zone across these five types of meanings. Themap on the bottom of page 4 represents an overallaverage of those maps.

We also asked study subjects to identify majorthreats they perceive to these meanings. Initial analysisreveals that residents perceived four primary categoriesof threats to the meanings they attached to the BufferZone: wildfire, intense logging, roads and development,and off-highway vehicle use. The threat of wildfire wasbroadly recognized by many subjects and blamed onyears of fire restriction, resulting in the feeling that nowuncontrolled fires would be disastrous due to over-stocked or dense vegetation.

Logging also was commonly listed among threats,giving rise to the dilemma that Tribal resource managersface. Specifically, people expressed fears about intenselogging, extreme logging, commercial logging, and largescale logging, suggesting that people are morethreatened by the scale and intensity it might entail thanthe logging itself.

Residents are also concerned about other threats tothe Buffer Zone such as perceived increases in roadaccess, subdivision of property, and ATV and motorcycleuse on and off roads. Some miscellaneous threatsattached to specific areas in the Buffer Zone were cattlegrazing, recreation over use, horses, litter, weeds,impacts to water quality, and insect outbreaks. Whilemany of these threats exist at a large scale, many wereattached to specific places in the BufferZone, providing opportunity to basediscussions with the public aboutpriorities for future managementactions. BEMRP scientists willcontinue to facilitateinteraction between forestmanagers and the public asproposals are developed in2008 to reduce fire hazard,increase forest health, andrestore the natural role offire on Tribal lands.

Mapping Cultural Values . . . (from page 4) Mice . . . (from page 8)

following natural wildfire, evaluated deer mouse seedpredation on Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine seeds, anddetermined whether seed predation affected treeregeneration.

At two different sets of study sites on the LoloNational Forest, we confirmed that deer mousepopulations increase dramatically in the first years afterforest fires. At one set of study sites, we put outponderosa pine and Douglas-fir seeds in trays to evaluatedeer mouse seed selection. We also placed seeds on theground in cages that either allowed or precluded mouseaccess to evaluate the effect of seed predation onseedling recruitment. Our preliminary data indicate that1) mice did not exhibit size-dependent seed selection,i.e., mice consumed Douglas-fir seeds as readily asponderosa pine seeds, 2) mice consumed large numbersof both seed species, and 3) seed predation by micegreatly reduced recruitment of seedlings for bothspecies. Thus, mice may influence the rate of post-fireregeneration, but not the trajectory, meaning thedirection the system is going such as toward a forestdominated by one tree species over another. Whenfinished, our study will improve our understanding ofanimal-plant interactions in western forest successionand determine whether deer mice warrant specialmanagement in regenerating forests.

possible to improbable. The crowning index (windspeed at which fire will spread in the tree crowns)almost tripled in the OT plots from 12 to 34 mph withthinning but changed minimally (17 to 19 mph) in theUC treatment. This contrast reflects the large and smallcanopy fuels changes for the OT and UC plots,respectively.

Therefore, models show that surface wind speedsincrease as a result of thinning, which in turn leads to anincrease in surface fire intensity. However, this expectedfire intensity increase should not result in increasedcrown fire potential. Instead, reductions in canopy fuelquantities and increases in canopy base heights in theOT treatment results in a low probability of crown firespreading or even initiating. Increases in canopy baseheights with removal of ladder fuels in the UC treatmentgreatly reduce the chance of crown fire initiation. Butwith the overstory fuels virtually unaltered, thelikelihood of crown fire spread remains unchanged. So,the trade-off for increased fire intensity is a substantialdecrease in crown fire potential.

What Kind of Cutting . . . (from page 7)

13

Krista Gebert . . . ( from page 10)

forecasting work earned her the Forest Service Chief’sAward in 2003.

Another rewarding and challenging line of researchis the Stratified Cost Index. This compares the estimatedcost of the fire with what was actually spent. She reviewscosts and sends a list of the fires that cost significantlymore than estimated to the Fire and AviationManagement office in Washington, D.C. and they followup with fire managers to learn why they were soexpensive. This results in better tracking of fireexpenditures by the fire managers and helps allparticipants understand what causes higher costs.

Krista is looking forward to working on ecosystemmanagement research with BEMRP. She got a taste for itwhen she helped out with the Trapper-Bunkhouseproject. In a project like that with multiple goals, thereare always budget constraints. “That’s the beauty ofeconomics; providing information helps managers makedecisions about tradeoffs. You can’t do everything withthe land, you have to make choices,” she said. AtTrapper-Bunkhouse there are fish culverts to install,trails to fix, hazardous fuels to reduce, roads torehabilitate, and more. Yet there aren’t enough funds tocover all of that. That’s where economics comes in tohelp with those choices.

As a new BEMRP team member, Krista looksforward to branching out into a new realm and workingmore with field folks. She likes knowing when researchshe does is applied on the ground. Sometimes,researchers conduct their research, write their journalarticles, and are not sure if anyone is actually using theresults. That’s one of the reasons she likes doing appliedresearch: “Over the years, there’s been a lot of directinteraction with management and that’s given us a lot ofresearch ideas. Working with managers is how most ofour research topics came up, and we can see it put touse.” She is excited that being involved with BEMRPwill give her the opportunity to do more of this type ofcollaborative research.

Ward: “Development of the entire hydrology, vegetative,and climate monitoring system on the ExperimentalForest has drawn researchers from all over the U.S. toinstall collaborative studies.” He’s excited about a new$36,000 climate station that will collect data onhydrology, atmospheric oxygen, daily and seasonalcarbon exchange, snow melt, atmospheric deposition,pH, particulates, and more. Ward has also beenapproached by the National Oceanic AtmosphericAdministration to use Tenderfoot as one of eight sites inthe United States to calibrate a Geostationary SatelliteServer (GOES) atmospheric weather satellite usingclimate and snow data.

Setting up experiments and learning from them isintellectually stimulating. “Scientists go into the sciencefield because it’s their nature to learn throughexperimenting,” he said. Ward loves working in ForestService research, explaining, “We have flexibility andlatitude in the types of studies we work on.”

He also enjoys working with resource managers inthe National Forest System, including the NorthernRegion Office, the Bitterroot National Forest, the Lewisand Clark National Forest, and BEMRP. He says that“Forest Service people are great people to work with.It’s the best ecological organization in the world, well-known and respected in Europe because of our researchpublications and how we manage our forests.”

Ward looks forward to the intellectual challengescoming up with the Trapper-Bunkhouse project,Northern Region Aspen Working Group, Whitebark Pinetechnical committee, and National Experimental ForestsManagers Working Group, and ballroom dancing.Ballroom dancing? “I used to dance a lot in Bozemanand I’m looking forward to doing more of it here inMissoula.” Ward’s advice to everyone is, “Don’t sweatthe small stuff. Go out and do the best you can.” Thatwould apply to work, play, and dancing.

Ward McCaughey . . . ( from page 11)

Highlighting Researchers

New Publication AvailableThe Rocky Mountain Research Station’s leadership team recently awarded its Outstanding Scientific

Publication award to Dean Pearson for his role as principal author and team leader of the publication BiologicalControl Agents Elevate Hantavirus by Subsidizing Deer Mouse Populations (Ecology Letters 9(4): 443-450,published in 2006, co-authored by Ragan Callaway of the University of Montana).

The paper looks at indirect risks of using exotic insects to control weeds. See the 2002-03 ECO-Report for anarticle about this research and last year’s ECO-Report where we reported on an interview with Dean in which hetalked about the surprising response to his findings (http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecopartner/ecoreport.shtml).

14

Getting the Word Out

Glossary – “What Do You Mean By That?”Despite our efforts to write ECO-Report articles in “jargon-free” language, we still haveto use terminology unfamiliar to some readers. Should you not recognize a term in ECO-Report, this glossary may help. If you don’t find the word here, visit BEMRP’s Glossaryweb page at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecopartner. Remember some definitions changeover time as new information develops. Periodically, we revise our web glossary page toreflect these changes.

BIOCONTROL—The use of living organisms, such aspredators, parasites, and pathogens, to control weeds,pest insects, or diseases.

FLAME LENGTH—The distance between the flametip and the midpoint of the flame depth at the base of theflame (generally the ground surface); an indicator of fireintensity.

FLUME—A flume is an instream structure used tomeasure the rate of flow. Flumes can also be designed tocollect water quality data and other measurements suchas temperature.

SNOTEL—A SNOTEL is an automated station thatcollects information on snowpack and climate. Theyare usually set up in areas difficult to access in thewinter. SNOTEL sites record data on snow watercontent, precipitation, and sometimes otherinformation. The acronym stands for SNOwTELemetry. Anyone with internet access can getreadouts from SNOTEL sites at http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snotel/.

TRAJECTORY—A trajectory is a path that a movingobject follows. In forest ecology terms, it is thedevelopmental pathway of the forest ecosystem overtime.

reality to these computations, we assumed that the forestbiomass is hauled from various locations in the BitterrootValley to the paper mill near Frenchtown, which has aboiler for generating energy from woody biomass. Weused the same published diesel consumption andemission factors used in the previously reported results.Diesel consumption and emission amounts are based onthe round trip, because one must first get the empty truckto the forest site where the biomass is located.

Our analysis found that when forest residue biomassis used for energy on only the northern portion of theValley, the average haul distance is 47 miles, increasingto an average of 85 miles when utilization is extended tothe entire valley. At the 47-mile average distance, dieselCO2 and PM10 emissions from hauling each representonly about 1% and 1.5%, respectively, of the totalemissions for the biomass-for-energy option (see table).These increase to about 2% for CO2 and 2.5% for PM10of the total emissions at the 85-mile average hauldistance. This means that reduction in emissionsassociated with using forest residues for heat energy islittle affected even at relatively long haul distances.Emissions from harvest and grinding represent a slightlylarger portion of the total emissions, around 2.5% forCO2 and 3% for PM10. Summing the two componentsfor CO2 , total diesel emissions represent 3.5% at the 47-

mile average, increasing to 4.5% at the 85-mile averagehaul distance. Total PM10 emissions from diesel rangefrom 4.5% to 5.5% of the total biomass-for-energyemissions, indicating the difference in emissions isminimal over this range in haul distance.

What about the amount of fossil fuel (diesel) energyneeded to harvest, grind, and haul the forest residuebiomass to produce the heat energy? At the average hauldistances we used, diesel energy consumption represents4.7% to 5.7% of the total biomass energy produced. Thatmeans at the shorter haul distance about 21 units ofbiomass energy are produced for each unit of dieselenergy used to get it. At the longer distance this drops to17 units of biomass energy for each unit of diesel energy.To determine if this is a good return of energy for theenergy expended, we can use the breakeven point, whereit takes one unit of energy for each unit produced. Gettinga return of 17 to 21 units of energy for 1 unit of energyexpended is clearly well above the breakeven point.

We thought it would be interesting to compare thiswith uses of other types of biomass for producing otherforms of energy. Researchers at the Argonne NationalLaboratory have published that 1.35 units of energy ofethanol made from corn are produced for each unit offossil fuel energy used. Compared to ethanol, 17 to 21units of biomass heat energy for 1 unit of diesel energyused to produce it is a good energy return. However, werecognize that using ethanol for fuel and burning biomassfor direct heat are not substitutes for each other.

Burning or Hauling? . . . (from page 9)

15

Getting the Word Out

Sharon Ritter, Research/Management Coordinator and ECO-Report Editor, BEMRP, RMRS, Stevensville, MT

While it wasn’t quite as good as actually going toJamaica, visiting with Jamaican forest managers on theBitterroot was still fun. In late September 2007, theNorthern Region hosted a visit from Marilyn Headley—Conservator of Forests, Keith Porter—Senior Director(both from the Forestry Department) and Lorna Jones-Lee from the Cabinet Office in Jamaica; KaryllAitcheson, Coordinator for the joint USFS/ USAIDProtected Areas and Rural Enterprise Project in Jamaica;Dana Roth, Caribbean Program Specialist for ForestService International Programs; Kirsten Kaiser, ForestPlanner on the Kootenai National Forest; and TomRhode, Regional Planner for the Northern Region.

In spring 2007, Kirsten and Tom visited Jamaica tohelp Forestry Department consultants and local forestmanagement committees develop a land managementplan and identify sustainable livelihood projects for oneof their protected areas. This trip to the Northern Regionwas an opportunity for members of the JamaicanForestry Department and government to learn how theForest Service conducts its land management programsand coordinates with other entities.

Greg Jones and I represented BEMRP by takingthem to the Lick Creek Demonstration/Research Forest.We talked about how and why RMRS established theBEMRP partnership and how researchers and managerswork together. We emphasized the importance ofresearch and in particular having the research andmanagement branches as separate, independent entities

Tour guests included: Kneeling: Tom Rhode. Standing left to right:Keith Porter, Kirsten Kaiser, Marilyn Headley, Dana Roth, KaryllAitcheson, Lorna Jones-Lee. (Photo by Tim Love)

Marilyn Headley (second from left), Conservator of Forests,Jamaican Forestry Department, asks questions about the role ofresearch in the U.S. Forest Service. (Photo by Dana Roth)

within the Forest Service (see Len Ruggiero’s article inlast year’s ECO-Report at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecopartner/ecoreport.shtml).

With the newly available Lick Creek autotourbrochure and last year’s ECO-Report in hand, we alsotalked about how we share research results with thepublic and resource managers. The visitors weren’t shyabout asking questions. Their warmth and opennessmade for an enjoyable morning.

Wildfire, Research, Climate . . . (from page 5)

Musselman, RMRS Research Plant Physiologist, willhelp with installation on all RMRS sites. According toBob, “Level II Critical Loads stations were initiallyestablished more than 20 years ago in Europe by theEuropean Union International Cooperative Program aspart of the Convention on Long-range Transport of AirPollutants, of which most European countries and theUnited States and Canada are signatories. This is the firstnetwork of ICP Level II stations to be establishedin the United States as a coordinated effortby the U.S. Forest Service.” We feelhonored and lucky thatTenderfoot was selected asone of the locations andlook forward to making useof the additional data it willprovide.

BEMRP and Jamaica?

16

ECO-ReportBitterroot Ecosystem Management

Research ProjectUSDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station800 E. Beckwith St.Missoula, MT 59801

The U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA) prohibits discrimination in allits programs and activities on the basisof race, color, national origin, sex,religion, age, disability, politicalbeliefs, sexual orientation, or marital orfamily status. (Not all prohibited basesapply to all programs.) Persons withdisabilities who require alternate meansfor communication of programinformation (Braille, large print,audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’sTARGET Center at (202) 720-2600(voice and TDD). To file a complaint ofdiscrimination, write USDA Director,Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,Whitten Building, 1400 IndependenceAvenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice andTDD). USDA is an equal opportunityemployer.

New Publication AvailableA new, colorful brochure leads visitors on a 7-mile

roadside tour of the Lick Creek Demonstration/ResearchForest in Montana’s Bitterroot Valley. Fourteen yearsago, the Bitterroot National Forest and scientists fromthe Rocky Mountain Research Station and University ofMontana conducted thinning treatments and prescribedburning at Lick Creek. Several stops on the autotourallow visitors to compare several treatments at once andlearn about research results. The autotour also featureshistory, geology, wildlife, and vegetation in the LickCreek area. Brooke Thompson, a contractor for RMRS,rewrote and redesigned the brochure with the help ofPeter Kolb, Montana State University Extension.

Lick Creek was the site of one of BEMRP’s firstresearch projects. Researchers are still monitoring theeffects of treatments on vegetation development, snagsurvival, wildlife forage and cover, tree growth, weeds,and soils. Pick up the brochure at the Darby, MT,district office or visit our website:http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/ecopartner/.