Post-Wildfire Monitoring Bitterroot National Forest Proposal TO: Robert Schrenk, Region 1, U. S. Forest Service Cindy Swanson, Region 1, U. S. Forest Service FROM: Jack Ward Thomas, School of Forestry, University of Montana SUBJECT: Post-Wildfire Monitoring - Bitterroot National Forest: Initial Proposal (Second draft) DATE: 16 May 2001 INTRODUCTION: In response to your verbal request I have met with a number of faculty members in the School of Forestry and the Wildlife Biology Program to explore interest in submitting a proposal related to post-wildfire monitoring on the Bitterroot National Forest. I found sufficient interest to proceed with putting together the following preliminary proposal for your consideration. The proposal is divided into two sections: Economic/Policy comparisons of salvage operations on State Trust Lands and National Forest Land Monitoring of biological effects comparing areas from which burned trees are salvaged versus those where no salvage activities occur. Such monitoring could be extended to State Trust Lands that were subjected to salvage operations to provide comparisons that would be useful in addressing economic/policy comparisons in the first section. ECONOMIC/POLICY COMPARISONS: There is a continuing discussion of the efficacy of the management of public lands as conducted by the state(s) compared with those conducted by the Forest Service. The primary difference is that the state lands are managed under the concept of trust responsibility – whereby the overriding objective is return to state treasury – while national forests are managed under multiple-use concepts with compliance with several other laws. The extant circumstances in the Bitterroot Valley related to the extensive fires of the year 2000 provide a rare opportunity to compare and contrast state and federal policies related to a cleanly defined management problem; i.e., post-fire timber salvage and rehabilitation. The study would describe and contrast: Laws, regulations, and processes relating to forest management Costs per land unit to carry out evaluations and execute management decisions relative to salvage and rehabilitation Timeliness of response; i.e., time required to institute and execute planning, time required to institute salvage operation and rehabilitation Costs (by category) to evaluate and plan courses of action, choose and validate the chosen course of action(s), and institute management actions Economic returns from salvage operations Short-term cost-to-benefit ratios of instituted management actions Public response (local, state, and national) to agency actions. This might be better handled by a social scientist as a separate study. Such a policy/economic evaluation, in combination with the data available from monitoring (see below) should prove useful in the inevitable discussions comparing state and federal land management and the laws and processes that guide such management. BIOLOGICAL MONITORING - DIRECTED TO TWO GOALS: These efforts will be directed toward two goals: Establishment of a coordinated sampling scheme that will provide an in-place nested sampling scheme for both immediate and longer-term monitoring contrasting results from approaches to salvage and rehabilitation among and between operations on state and federal lands. An in-place sampling scheme will be left in place that will facilitate longer term monitoring and comparisons. Establishment of base-line information related to biological response to fires in comparable plant communities providing a capability of comparing management actions between ownership classes. The effort will be divided into several efforts as follows: Vegetative response Animal response Small mammals Birds Reptiles and amphibians Note:  Once sampling plots are established, continued monitoring can be conducted at desired intervals either by graduate students or agency personnel. Sampling schemes will be so described and marked on the ground to facilitate repeated use. PROPOSED METHODS OF APPROACH, LEAD INVESTIGATIORS, ASSOCIATED TIMELINES, AND BUDGETS: We propose funding of one overall package to be administered by one coordinator. Lead Investigator/Scientists are all faculty members at the University of Montana. Personnel assignments and budget estimates should be considered tentative. Most of the fieldwork will be accomplished through graduate students (likely a Ph.D. student on the Policy/Economics sections and Masters students on the remainder). ITEM LEAD SCIENTIST(S) COSTS Coordinators Les Marcum , Jack Ward Thomas $25,000 Policy/Economics Hayley Hesseln, Jack Ward Thomas 75,000 Vegetation Response Paul Alaback 50,000 Animal Response:       Small Mammals Kerry Foresman, Don Christian 25,000       Birds Richard Hutto 25,000       Reptiles and Amphibians Kerry Foresman 25,000 Overhead (10%) University of Montana 25,000 TOTAL   $250,000 PROPOSED TIME FRAMES: Economic/Policy Comparisons: Preparation of detailed study plan(s) within four months of funding. Data collection and analyses within 16 months of funding. Final report (suitable for publication in whole or in parts) within 22 months of funding. It is proposed that a qualified Forest Service social scientist/economist serve on the doctoral committee of the student selected. We recommend Dr. Cindy Swanson, who is a member of the University of Montana, School Forestry, adjunct faculty. Biological Monitoring: As these efforts are intertwined, the time frames for all segments are basically the same. Preparation of a coordinated package of study plans will be complete within two months of funding. Integrated sampling strategies will be developed and plots installed by fall of 2001 (if funding is available by 01 July 2001) or by late spring of 2002 (if funding is in hand by October of 2001). Data collection will begin in late spring of 2002 and terminate in the fall of 2002. Final reports will be submitted by May of 2003 or earlier. Discussion: Clearly, timing of the funding is critical to the time frames discussed above. Graduate students will do much of the work; therefore, timing depends on having graduate students in place to collect, interpret, and analyze data. That requires time to get students in place. Lead scientists will design the sampling frames and select study areas. Therefore, adjustments and flexibility will be required of the funding agency. ESTIMATED TIME FRAMES: Item Description Economics/Policy Study Detailed study plan by July 2001, data collection complete by August 2002, complete by January 2003. Biological Monitoring:     Vegetation Response Detailed study plan by July 2001, sampling scheme in place by October 2001, data collection complete by October 2002, final report by January 2003.     Animal Response Same

HOME • FIRES • CONTACTS • FENCES • LINKS • STATE UPDATES COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE • GREAT NORTHERN CREW • COMMUNITIES AT RISK RESEARCH & MONITORING • GLOSSARY • SITE MAP • EMAIL • COMMENTS