Number 6 December 15,

An information digest published by the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station
IFSL, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807

Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Restoration and Research: Where are we and where are we going?

A decade ago, nearly 100 scientists, land managers and other interested people got together in Bozeman, Montana to discuss a little known tree species that had received limited attention in land management planning: the whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). At that time little was known about this species, especially its autecology, distribution, and condition of its forests. Recent scientific information suggested whitebark pine was important to upper subalpine ecosystems and it seemed to be rapidly declining, but relatively few people had paid any attention. However, this first 1985 Bozeman workshop identified whitebark pine as an important tree species on the landscape and recognized that it is rapidly decreasing across the northern parts of its range. With that in mind, workshop participants sketched together a comprehensive plan to study and manage the species and its environment. There have been seven other formal gatherings since that first workshop including two symposia, two conferences and three workshops, and there is another symposium scheduled for September 1998. Whitebark pine was also petitioned (but not recommended) to be placed on the threatened and endangered species list. Yes, there has been plenty of excitement concerning whitebark pine in the last 10 years. However, there have also been plenty of projects that didn't happen. Is whitebark pine the latest ecological "fad", or is the management of this tree critical to sustaining the ecological integrity of upper subalpine ecosystems? Let's take an objective look at the current state of whitebark pine research and management in the Pacific Northwest and evaluate its successes and failures, then maybe we can identify some possible future goals.

To start, let's talk about the gains we've made in whitebark pine management. First, and most importantly, whitebark pine has gone from an obscure species, rarely addressed in forest plans, to an prominent upper subalpine tree species. Its importance as a wildlife food and provider of habitat, and its value as a keystone species in the upper subalpine ecosystem has been publicized and published in over 20 journal articles and 2 symposia proceedings during the last 7 years. Many field studies have been initiated to investigate important facets of whitebark pine forests including fire ecology, regeneration mechanisms, community ecology and ecosystem restoration. Numerous talks and presentations to government, public and private organizations have been successful as information exchanges and status reports. The rapid decline of whitebark pine, caused by blister rust, fire exclusion and mountain pine beetle, has now been accepted in most management circles, especially in the north-western forests of the northern Rocky Mountains and Cascades. Simulation models and extensive data bases have been built to evaluate future trends of this species. Indeed, we have come a long way in a short time.

Given these achievements of last decade, what is the downside of this rising whitebark pine tide. Well, probably the most obvious shortcoming in the whitebark pine program is the apparent lack of management projects that actually got implemented on the ground. Very few projects concerned with treatment of whitebark pine stands have been started on public lands. Many projects were planned but relatively few were realized, and those that were initiated treated very few acres. Why? Well, probably most importantly, these ecosystems are difficult to treat, either by fire or cutting, because of several environmental and cultural factors. First, they are somewhat inaccessible. Second, they are difficult to burn. Usually, when conditions are right for a prescribed burn in high elevation whitebark pine forests, the lower elevation forest lands are so dry that starting a fire seems inappropriate to the some of the publics and people in government management agencies. Thirdly, most of these whitebark pine forests are within wilderness or roadless areas and management policies preclude direct treatment of these stands, except by prescribed natural fires (allowing lightning fires to burn under prescribed circumstances). The end result is that less than 200 acres have actually been treated for ecosystem restoration in the last ten years. John Rohrer on the Okanogan National Forest relates a very familiar story to all of us. John and staff wanted to treat 20 acres of a whitebark pine stand that was rapidly being dominated by subalpine fir. The treatment was a thinning to remove the fir and dead/dying whitebark pine. Two years and many appeals later, only 5 acres were treated at an inordinate cost to the government. Clearly, the treatment of only a few hundred acres a decade will not restore whitebark pine to its historical condition because there are over 2 million acres of whitebark pine in the Interior Columbia River Basin and most of these forests burned every 200 to 500 years in large fires of varying intensities (>1000 acres).

One important fact is known about whitebark pine. We are losing this species at an accelerated rate, especially in the northern parts of its range, due to blister rust and fire exclusion policies. There is little we can do about blister rust except start a genetics program to rear rust-resistant varieties, and the Forestry Sciences Lab in Moscow, ID is doing just that. However, there is quite a bit we can do to mitigate the effects of 60 years of fire exclusion in these fire-dominated forests. Prescribed burning, prescribed natural fires, management-ignited wilderness prescribed burns, and silvicultural cuttings to release whitebark pine are just some of the tools we can use to reduce the encroachment of subalpine fir and to provide caching habitat for the Clark's nutcracker. Moreover, current research seems to indicate that perhaps the single-most important action we can take to improve whitebark pine rust-resistance on the landscape is to create nutcracker caching sites by removing trees on large blocks of land using fire. The ensuing whitebark pine regeneration will most likely come from trees that have some degree of rust resistance. This is especially true when most overstory trees have already been killed by the rust and thus the surviving trees are likely to be rust-resistant. Large area, prescribed burning projects planned on the Bitterroot and Kootenai National Forests will hopefully create such a scenario.

Where do we go from here? Obviously, we still have a great deal to learn about this complex species. Continued research on fundamental ecological relationships and restoration techniques are critical for successful whitebark pine management. Simulation modeling is also an important tool we can use to evaluate possible management actions. However, the single most important action we can do to maintain this species on the landscape is to use the tools and knowledge we've gained over the last decade and start creating early seral communities conducive for whitebark pine regeneration.

Whitebark pine is mostly found in small stands in the northeast corner of Mount Rainier National Park. These stands are typically 2 to 125 acres in size and are distributed between 5,700 and 7,200 feet in elevation. Little information is available regarding the composition and condition of these stands. Most available information was collected in 1935 as part of a vegetation cover survey. During that time, all forests were mapped, classified (vegetation type), and inventoried. During the summer of 1994, we initiated preliminary surveys to develop inventory methods, describe the condition (composition, demographics) of whitebark pine stands, and the distribution of blister rust in the park.

The 1935 survey delineated 67 stands of whitebark pine covering 2,809 ac. The study also classified whitebark pine stands into five types: subalpine parkland (whitebark pine in clumps), whitebark pine dominated, Alaska yellow cedar dominated, fir dominated, and mountain hemlock dominated. We started our 1994 study by digitizing all whitebark pine stands and entering them into the park's GIS. We then selected a subset of the 67 stands based on accessibility and forest type (14 stands representing 1,114 ac). Plot methods were developed after discussions with Kate Kendall (NBS), Jerry Beatty (USFS), and Bob Keane (USFS). Our objectives were to estimate the distribution of blister rust within whitebark pine stands while collecting enough ecological information to interpret the diversity we might encounter. Within each stand, 1 to 4 (0.1 ac) circular plots were subjectively established in a representative portion of the stand (total of 30 plots). Within each plot, all trees were identified to species and presence or absence of saplings (<1" d.b.h.). Saplings were tallied by species and presence or absence of blister rust. Additional detailed data was collected for trees including crown position (dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, open crown, tree clump; edge); percentage of live crown; percentage of crown dead; estimated height class, d.b.h; tree health (dead,lean, blister rust, stressed but unknown cause): and severity of blister rust (distance of canker from bole).

This winter data will be entered into computer data bases and analyzed. Preliminary reviews of data indicate that blister rust was present in all stands inventoried and 73 percent of the plots were infected. However, we had a difficult time positively identifying blister rust. Most of the trees we saw had gnarled crooked stems which made it difficult to see cankers. Many trees were on windswept ridges where we would expect trees to be stressed. During the time of our study (late August/early September) we only saw fungal fruiting bodies a couple of times. We expect that some of our identification problems will clear up next year when we spend a greater part of the summer surveying whitebark pine and with the establishment of permanent plots. We did find seedlings and cone production in some stands and received information from backcountry rangers about stands that may not be infected.

This winter I will be summarizing data and pursuing funding for field work in 1995. I would like to establish permanent plots using the USFS ecodata methodology. Additionally, I hope to relocate some of the photopoints established during the 1935 vegetation cover survey. Some of the stands which were classified as whitebark pine dominant in 1935 are not dominated by subalpine fir. Repeat photographs of these sites would illustrate how dramatically the park landscape has changed since the park was established in 1899.

In the northern Rocky Mountains, whitebark pine is rapidly declining as a result of previous fire exclusion policies, mountain pine beetle outbreaks, and white pine blister rust. Within the Grave Physiographic Area on the Fortine RD, Kootenai NF, whitebark pine stands tend to be restricted to high elevations above 5,500 feet. Field surveys in the summer of 1995 indicated variable whitebark pine mortality ranging from 30 percent up to over 70 percent. Mortality is attributed to white pine blister rust (an introduced disease) and mountain pine bark beetle infestation.

Past fire-exclusion policies have contributed to a decrease in early seral stands which are preferred whitebark pine seed cache sites for the Clarks nutcracker. In conjunction with the decrease in early seral stands, mature (late-seral) stands have increased. Within these stands, accumulations of wind thrown trees, standing dead whitebark pine, and subalpine fir in-growth have increased the potential for more intense wildfires with greater environmental effects. Fire exclusion has also favored the establishment and growth of shade tolerant tree species such as subalpine fir rather than whitebark pine. While whitebark pine cone production and regeneration was evident, whitebark pine mortality from blister rust is expected to increase.

Therefore, a need exists to reintroduce fire into this high elevation ecosystem. Prescribed fire could create suitable sites for the establishment of whitebark pine regeneration and reduce fuel loads and continuity in some areas. Despite these benefits, there is still a reluctance by certain land managers and forest users to allow the use of prescribed fire in wildland areas. Devastating fires such as the 1910 fires in northern Idaho and western Montana, and the more recent Yellowstone fires have done much to foster a sense of reluctance in the use of large scale prescribed fires.

In order to demonstrate the need for reintroducing larger fires within high elevation ecosystems, a landscape analysis was completed for the Grave Physiographic Area. To assist in our assessment, Ecological Land Units (ELU's) were used to determine historic and current whitebark pine stand conditions for areas above 5,500 feet in the Grave PA. An ELU is an aggregation of land having similar patterns of potential natural communities, soils, hydrologic function, landform and topography, lithology, climate, air quality, and natural processes. Management Area (MA) direction for the Grave PA included MA 2 (roadless), MA 9 (Ten Lakes wilderness study area) and MA 14 (grizzly bear recovery). Forest Plan direction for these Management Areas allow the use of prescribed fire for wildlife habitat enhancement. In addition, MA 2 and 14 allow the use of prescribed fire for fuels management.

1) Thin in older burns and clearcuts to favor existing WBP regeneration and discriminate against SAF regeneration.

2) Maintain WBP for wildlife, aesthetic, and species diversity by creating favorable nutcracker cache sites for WBP seed.

3) Manage early seral condition at historic (pre-fire suppression levels). Data from Bob Marshall indicates early seral at about 20% of WBP areas.

4) Manage fire occurrence (prescribed fire - planned and natural ignition) to be similar in size, intensity, and interval as historic levels.

8) Reduce subalpine fir encroachment on sites historically dominated by whitebark pine.

12) Develop an interpretive sign describing whitebark pine and fuel management in the Grave PA.

13) Treat dead lodgepole stands with prescribed fire to reduce fuel loads and encourage LPP regeneration

Once the opportunities were identified, the interdisciplinary team developed the following criteria to identify potential treatment areas where prescribed fire could be used to facilitate either the establishment of seral whitebark pine communities or reduce heavy fuel concentrations.

Based on the criteria listed above, four areas were identified as part of a project proposal. Proposed prescribe burn units range in size from 31 acres up to 245 acres. For project specifics and descriptions of the ELU attributes, please contact Jim Harrington or Michael Liu at the Fortine Ranger District, Kootenai NF.

Grizzly bears were eliminated from the Bitterroot Ecosystem of north central Idaho by the mid-1940's. Unregulated hunting, trapping, and predator control eradicated a once common species. Since the late 1940's, a few scattered sightings have been reported but none have yet been verified.

When the grizzly bear was listed as a "threatened" species under the Endangered Species Act in 1975, the Bitterroot Ecosystem was listed as a potential recovery zone. Research followed to try to verify the existence of bears and to determine whether the habitat there could still support grizzly bear populations. Of concern was the apparent loss of whitebark pine and the elimination of historic salmon runs. Three different habitat research projects indicated a variety and quantify of berry species including huckleberry, serviceberry, chokecherry and elderberry, in addition to historically high numbers of big game animals (80,000 elk and 170,000 deer) would provide adequate fall foods to offset the loss of salmon and whitebark pine. Big game animals winter within the wilderness boundaries, and early spring green-up provides an opportunity for grizzly bears to forage in a relatively undisturbed environment. In addition, according to Idaho Fish and Game estimates, the recovery analysis area presently supports about 11,800 black bears, providing annual harvests of over 1,000 bears. Grizzly and black bear foraging habits are similar enough to provide some indication of the potential success of establishing 200-300 grizzlies within the same area. On outfitter on Moose Creek reports counting over 20 black bears a day during the spring hunting season. Moreover, the recovery team recognizes the importance of reintroducing bears from source areas with similar habitats. Bears from interior British Columbia, the likely donor population, do not use whitebark or salmon. The key to successful recovery in all ecosystems does not appear to be as much a food question as it is a human-caused mortality question. Because of the Bitterroot Ecosystem's great size, remoteness, inaccessibility and subsequent lack of frequent contact with humans, the likelihood of grizzly bear survival is greatly enhanced.

Of concern is not just the biology and science, but the social and political realities of the effort as well. A recent public survey conducted for the USFWS indicated that 62% of the local, 74% of the regional and 77% of the national respondents were supportive of grizzly bear reintroduction into the Bitterroots. Most people supporting the recovery felt that bears should be saved from extinction and that they are an important part of the ecosystem. Not much of the information regarding the bear's importance to the ecosystem has been uncovered as yet, but recent research has shown bear foraging improves soil fertilization around dig sites and that bears disperse plant seeds widely through their poorly digested feces. Perhaps an unexpected benefit to the ecosystem might be grizzly bears digging up nut caches that consequently mixes the seed with soil and thereby enhancing whitebark regeneration. The main reason given for opposing recovery was concern for human safety. However, more people will be injured or killed in one day in Idaho and Montana as a result of the speed limit increase from 55 to 65 mph than will be killed or injured in the Bitterroot Ecosystem by grizzly bears in the next 50 years (based on national statistics).

Presently, an interagency team is developing an EIS, reviewing several different alternatives that most likely will successfully return grizzly bears to the Bitterroot Ecosystem. The draft EIS is scheduled to be available to the public by March 1996 (pending continued federal furloughs) and the Record of Decision is to filed in the Federal Register in September 1996.

For more information on this Grizzly Bear Recovery Effort, contact the Grizzly Recovery Coordinator, USFWS, Forestry Sciences Lab, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, or Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, 1540 Warner Ave, Lewiston, ID 83501.

In the summer of 1995, the Boise Field Office of Forest Pest Management initiated a preliminary disease survey of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) in Region 4 of the USDA Forest Service. I am conducting the survey as part of my work toward a master's degree in forest resources at the University of Idaho. The primary goal of the survey is to determine the distribution of diseases, especially blister rust (a disease caused by the introduced fungus Cronartium ribicola), within the whitebark pine of this region. Additionally, we hope to identify some of the environmental parameters and pathogen associations that affect the incidence of disease in these whitebark pine ecosystems.

Study Area -- We concentrated our initial effort in and around the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA) where we surveyed 11 sites. Additional sites were surveyed on the Payette N.F. (3) and Humbolt N.F. (1). We also sampled two limber pine (Pinus flexilis) stands, one at Craters of the Moon National Monument, and one on the Challis N.F. Region 4 contains a substantial amount of whitebark pine, with much of it occurring in areas of high recreation value such as the SNRA. We began surveying near the SNRA because it lies on the southern "front" of a region with a high incidence of blister rust. Blister rust disease has been identified as a major factor in whitebark pine mortality in northern Idaho (Arno and Hoff 1989). However, very little is known about the spread of the disease throughout southern and central Idaho.

Methods -- Accessible whitebark pine stands were identified from aerial photographs, stand inventory maps, and personal communication with field personnel. We randomly selected several of these stands to sample. During July and part of August we experimented with different methods for quantifying disease incidence, site parameters and stand condition. ECODATA sampling techniques were used on 10 of the 17 whitebark pine stands. This methodology, developed by Keane and others (1990), and modified by Kate Kendall (NBS, Glacier National Park Field Station) for whitebark pine (pers. comm.) appeared to work well for quantifying site and stand differences such as tree density and structure, species composition, slope, and aspect.

Preliminary Results -- Our initial observations suggested some interesting distribution patterns of disease incidence and possible pathogen relationships. For example, four of the 11 SNRA sites had trees infected with blister rust. Three of these sites had very low levels of blister rust incidence, while one was severely infected. Interestingly, the infected trees at the three low-infection sites were open-grown or on the edge of a stand while nearby trees growing in more dense conditions were uninfected. The fourth stand also consisted of 19 clumps of open-grown trees (3-5 trees in each clump). Every tree of every clump, approximately 80 trees, was infected. This site differs from the other three sites in that it is approximately 2500 feet lower in elevation, and nearby Ribes spp. plants (the alternate host for blister rust) are of a different species.

Incidence of other major disease elements was low. Small infections of dasyscypha canker (Lachnellula spp.) occurred in most stands. Brown felt blight (Herpotrichia coulteri) was prevalent, probably due to the late snowmelt last Spring, but only a few seedlings appeared to be killed by the fungus. We tentatively identified several root pathogens and decay organisms in all of the stands we surveyed. Inonotus tomentosus, Coniophora puteana, and Fibuliporia donkii were repeatedly found within stands, but only in down material and stumps. We found fungal incipient decay in 3 of 4 trees that we sampled for root disease. Roots were excavated from these trees because of the presence of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae). Under non-epidemic population levels, mountain pine beetle is probably a secondary pathogen and a good indicator of some other problems like root disease (Kulhavy 1977).

1996 Survey -- Our plan for the 1996 field season is to increase our sample size and to expand our survey to include more of Region 4, including the Salmon-Challis, Boise, and Targhee National Forests. Comments, questions, and suggestions regarding this project are welcome, and may be directed to the author.

Arno, S. F., and R. J. Hoff. 1989. Silvics of Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. INT-253, 14p.

Keane, R. E., M. E. Jensen, and W. J. Hann. 1990. ECODATA and ECOPAC - analytical tools for integrated resource management. The Compiler. 8(3): 24-37.

Kulhavy, David L. 1977. The root and stem diseases, bark beetle complex, and their interactions in standing western white pine in Idaho. Dissertation. Moscow, Idaho. 69 p.

Whitebark pine and Mountain Hemlock in the Mallard Larkins Pioneer Area of Idaho

Arthur Zack, Ecologist, Idaho Panhandle National Forest
[Editors note: This article was taken from Botany News]

On September 15 through 17 I traveled into the east side of the Mallard Larkins Pioneer area on the St. Joe Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle Nat'l Forest. The following observations apply to an 8 mile trail transect from near Surveyors Peak, across Collins Peak, to Mallard Peak, and to Fawn Lake. Travel was mostly along trails 11, 65, and 110, and covered elevations from 5600' to 6870'. This area covers much of the head of Sawtooth Creek.

Whitebark Pine -- In the areas travelled, this species is functionally extirpated. In two days of travel I observed only two live whitebark pine trees. On higher elevation ridgetops, exposed rock outcrops, and shallow soils areas there were commonly small patches of large buckskin snags. These snags had lost all their smaller branches, and only retained parts of branches two inches in diameter and larger. Branch and bark loss lead me to estimate that these trees have been dead approximately 10-15 years. From residual bark patches near the ground and tree form, I identified all these snag patches as whitebark pine. The trees have been dead too long to reliably identify a cause of death. I suspect white pine blister rust may have played some role in the mortality.

Even before this mortality event, whitebark pine did not constitute a large component of these stands. Over most of this area, succession has progressed since the last stand-replacing fire that whitebark pine was no longer a part of most stands (if it had ever been). The whitebark pine snags were all on very high elevation, rocky, or exposed sites that were not capable of supporting closed canopy forest. Prior to this last mortality episode, whitebark pine existed in widely scattered patches on harsher sites. Now it no longer exists as a functional species in this area.

Mountain Hemlock -- The head of Sawtooth Creek contains one of the largest continuous bands of relatively pure, and mostly old growth mountain hemlock that I've seen on this forest. Except on the driest aspects, most stands were 95%+ mountain hemlock, with the remainder being subalpine fir. Based on visual estimates, most stands appeared to be approximately 200 years plus, with some clearly older trees. There was less evidence of mixed severity fire than many areas I've observed. The one obvious recent mixed severity burn area I observed (estimate burned ~30 years ago in a patchy mosaic on west side of Section 30), was naturally regenerating to relatively pure mountain hemlock, even in the openings. The heavy dominance of mountain hemlock, and the age class structures I observed lead me to suspect that recent intervals between stand replacing fires have substantially exceeded 200 years.

Throughout the entire area we traveled, the majority of the mountain hemlock and subalpine fir were suffering light defoliation from western blackheaded budworm (Acleris gloverana -- identified by Carol Randall, pest management entomologist, based on samples I brought back). I did not observe any top kill, or any defoliation severe enough to threaten tree survival. However, we were continually surrounded by moths of this species, and our dome tent was covered with dozens of moths in the morning. In forested areas, at eye level, moth density probably exceeded one moth per cubic meter.

Recommendations -- Whitebark pine formerly played a role on more severe sites in this area. It is now functionally gone as a result of a major mortality episode 10-15 years ago. This represents a loss of biodiversity. This may have resulted from the exotic disease, white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola). Planning for this area should consider the question of whether blister rust resistant whitebark pine should be planted after any natural stand replacing disturbances that may occur.

This area is unusual for the large extent of its relatively pure, old growth mountain hemlock stands. Future plans for this area should consider that historical fire disturbance regimes here may be different than in other parts of northern Idaho, and examine fire history to establish a historical reference point. The area should be surveyed the next few years for blackheaded budworm, to better understand the role this insect plays in these relatively pure mountain hemlock stands.

[Editors note: Wayne Phillips, Ecologist, Lewis and Clark National Forest, walked this trail in 1967 and mentioned that whitebark pine was a major component of the ridge traversed by this trail. He notes that the slides he took of this area at that time show healthy trees.]

What makes one tree able to thrive in a certain environment, while others of the same species languish as stunted miniatures or die outright? The key is often differences in their genomes. Many tree species have a genetic structure consisting of a large number of populations, each of which is adapted to specific environmental conditions. These are sometimes termed "specialists"; Douglas-fir is one such species. Other genetic structures are less well defined and populations can thrive in a range of environments. One good example of this type of species, called a "generalist", is western white pine.

The devastation of whitebark pine stands has prompted some to consider planting seedlings in areas where insufficient natural regeneration is occurring. Normally, the best way to avoid maladapted seedlings is to plant seed from local sources. However, the stands in question are predominantly those hit so hard by blister rust that no seed source is left. Thus, by definition the seedlings would come from nonlocal sources.

Before any kind of planting program begins, it is important to find out the pattern of genetic variation in whitebark pine. Is it a specialist or a generalist? Intuition suggests that whitebark, with its disjunct populations, may be tightly adapted to its particular mountaintop and thus be specialized. However, the mountaintop environment across a large area may be uniformly severe such that a generalist strategy may suffice. Additionally, the actions of the Clark's nutcracker means that seeds from any individual tree may be planted miles away on a completely different site, again suggesting a generalist strategy would be more useful.

The way such an assumption is tested is through trials of adaptive variation in common environments. Seeds are collected across a wide area and then grown in a common garden, where different characteristics are measured. These traits are typically ones that affect an individual's ability to take advantage of favorable conditions on a site, or to protect themselves against unfavorable conditions. The date of bud break, for example, is important; on some sites, late frost would kill shoots that elongate too soon. On the other hand, a tree that breaks bud too late would be at a disadvantage; it could grow slower than other trees on the site and therefore be crowded out eventually, or it could have delayed bud set and therefore be susceptible to early fall frosts.

Scientists at the Intermountain Lab in Moscow, Idaho, have been spearheading an effort to collect enough seeds for the adaptive variation trials. Spurred on by the desire to get the study out of the theoretical and into the practical, cooperators across Montana, Idaho and northeastern Washington have been making cone collections since the early 1990s. In the summer of 1995, collections were made by Region 1 National Forest personnel on the Cabinet, Fortine and Three Rivers districts of the Kootenai NF; on the North Fork district of the Clearwater NF; on the Tally Lake and Glacier View districts of the Flathead NF; on the Bonner's Ferry and St. Marie's districts of the Idaho Panhandle NF; and on the Salmon River and Red River districts of the Nez Perce NF. Additionally, collections were made by Intermountain personnel on the Lolo NF and the Bitterroot NF. People from a number of different organizations helped Intermountain personnel make collections; Kate Kendall of Glacier National Park helped make a collection on the east side of the park, Bryan Donner of the Glacier View district assisted with a collection at the Big Mountain Ski Area in Whitefish, and Tom Despain of the Colville NF in Region 6 helped make a collection on the Kettle Crest.

Again, the race with the nutcracker went to those who were prepared ahead of time. Collections that were bagged using the wire hardware cloth cages were generally successful. However, those who waited too long to cage found their cones pecked over even before they ripened. Many people called in early August to see if cones were ripening early. The difficulty with whitebark pine is that the cones appear ripe since they are fully enlarged long before the embryo has reached full elongation. However, reduced germination rates will result if the seed inside cones are picked too soon. Since whitebark germination rates aren't great to start with, unripe seeds complicate the issue. Generally, cones are ripe enough to pick the last week of August.

As yet, the Coeur d'Alene Nursery has not had a chance to extract all the seed and determine quantities collected. 1995 was a decent cone year in Idaho but an excellent cone year in northern Montana. However, some collections may have to be supplemented in 1996 so enough seed is available for the trial. On the plus side, the cone crop for Idaho for 1996 looks like it may be very good, barring unforeseen weather events. While collecting in northeastern Washington and northern Idaho, I observed many conelets, often in groups of three to four per branch. Trees from the Pilot Knob area on the Nez Perce NF had even more impressive conelet groups; I counted eight on one branch. Later this winter, information will be available about where collections are still needed. The goal is in sight; if enough collections are made in 1996 the seeds will be planted in the spring of 1997.

Whitebark Pine Communities in the Northern Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem:
Patterns of Regeneration Since the 1988 Fires

The 1988 fires in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem burned roughly 15% of the whitebark pine communities in the region, providing the opportunity to learn about the dynamics of early post-fire regeneration for whitebark pine and its forest associates. Given the importance of whitebark pine communities to the survival of the grizzly bear, some knowledge of the time-frame of regeneration should be particularly important. Supported by the Intermountain Research Station of the Forest Service, and with Steve Arno and Bob Keane as primary liasons, we designed a large-scale, long-term study, involving two different areas and different ecological treatments and controls. We began the study in 1990, the summer after the first whitebark pine cone crop post-1988, and finally completed our work in 1995-- seven years after the fires and with six years of detailed data. The data gathered allow us to address questions concerning the process of regeneration, including the importance of ecological treatment (e.g., moist or dry, burned or unburned), snowpack and precipitation, survivorship, synchrony with cone crops, and effects of cover and initial char depth. At the University of Colorado at Denver, we are in the process of analyzing data, and I expect to generate several manuscripts from this work. In this article, I summarize our methods and some of the findings.

Study Areas and Methods -- In 1990, we set up 275 permanent plots in two study areas, with seven ecological treatments. The plots in the Cooke City study area near Henderson Mountain in the Fisher Creek drainage, Gallatin National Forest, are divided into four ecological treatments: dry, stand-replacing burn (CCDB); moist, stand-replacing burn (CCMB); dry, unburned forest (CCDU); and, moist, unburned forest (CCMU) (elevation ranged from about 2680 to 2745 m). The plots on Mt. Washburn study area, Yellowstone National Park, between the Chittenden Road turnoff and Dunraven Pass are divided among four treatments: dry, stand-replacing fire (MWDB); moist, stand-replacing burn (MWMB); and moist, ground fire (MWMG) (elevation ranged from 2560 to 2745 m). Plots are circular in shape, each 20 square meters in area and marked with an i.d. number. In both study areas, the pre-fire subalpine forest (or unburned forest) is successional: in the absence of fire, whitebark pine is replaced over time by subalpine fir or Engelmann spruce.

Each summer, usually beginning in mid-July, we would examine each plot for new and old regeneration and cover class. All whitebark pine seedlings were mapped, so that known individuals could be followed through time. We measured and aged all other conifer regeneration as well. Each plot was examined by two to three different individuals, thereby ensuring that most regeneration would be found, which was not easy on heavily vegetated plots. Completing all 275 plots required about five weeks of fieldwork each summer, involving three or four workers. Additional data that we gathered included char depth averages for each plot (1990), age class and species composition of pre-fire forest (gathered from burned overstory, to the best of our ability), estimates of whitebark pine cone crop each year, and descriptions of whitebark pine microsites and seedling cluster sizes (many whitebark pine regeneration sites support seedling clusters, because nutcrackers often bury more than one seed in a cache). We have also received yearly cone crop transect counts from the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (thanks to Bonnie Blanchard), weather data from the Tower Ranger Station in Yellowstone National Park (thanks to Phil Perkins), and SNOTEL data from Fisher Creek (thanks to Ward McCaughey and Phil Farnes). At this time, we have finished the computer database for the project. We are beginning the data analysis at this time. The following are some preliminary results and discussion.

Variation in whitebark pine regeneration densities -- As of 1995, whitebark pine (PIAL) regeneration densities are lowest on the Cooke City moist, unburned forest treatment (CCMU) and the Mt. Washburn dry, stand-replacing burn treatment (MWDB) and highest on both Mt. Washburn moist treatments (MWMB, MWMG). These latter moist treatments have a NW slope aspect, in contrast to the SE aspect of the Cooke City moist sites, which are adjacent to a creek. Differences among treatments are not necessarily the result of differences in whitebark pine cone availability; in both study areas the treatments were in close proximity to unburned stands of cone-bearing trees. The Mt. Washburn situation is a case in point: all three treatments were near old, unburned trees, and all treatments were routinely visited by nutcrackers. I suspect that a number of variables together will explain these patterns, particularly slope aspect and moisture, vegetation density on plots, and char depth.

Precipitation and cone crops -- The occurrence of a cone crop the previous fall was not necessarily a good predictor of new regeneration. High April snowpack seems a more critical driver of germination, along with time since the last good cone crop. Whitebark pine seeds may remain viable in the ground for several years, and high spring moisture appears to trigger a flush of germination. Although the last good cone crop was in 1992, we still had germination in the Mt. Washburn moist treatments in 1995, a year of high April snowpack.

Regeneration of subalpine communities -- There are major differences in the composition of the regenerating forests and rates of regeneration between the two study areas. Although there is virtually no lodgepole pine (PICO) in the Cooke City regeneration, it was also a minor component in the burned overstory forest. On the Cooke City dry, burned treatment (CCDB), whitebark pine (PIAL) and subalpine fir (ABLA) are the only conifers regenerating to date. This may well reflect the severity of the treatment and underscores the hardiness of whitebark pine seedlings. The low densities of subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce (PIEN), which is a moist site indicator species, on the Cooke City moist, burned treatment (CCMB) also suggests that conditions are drier than we originally believed. Lodgepole pine was an important species in the overstory forest in the first two Mt. Washburn treatments. It is the most common regenerating conifer on the dry, burned treatment (MWDB), and it is even more common on the moist, burned treatment (MWMB). Engelmann spruce is the most common regenerating conifer by far on the two Mt. Washburn moist treatments, which appears to confirm that these treatments are the most moist of all treatments. With respect to the pre-fire overstory in both study areas, whitebark pine was not very common. In fact, first impression suggests that the current density of whitebark pine regeneration is not dissimilar from the density of whitebark pine in the pre-burn overstory.

Concluding remarks -- This preliminary examination of the data provides a status report on subalpine regeneration, and particularly whitebark pine regeneration, in the Greater Yellowstone in the wake of the 1988 fires. Many of our questions will remain unanswered until we complete our data analysis.

I am indebted to a number of undergraduate and graduate students for helping me with the rigorous field work each summer, in particular Kathy Carsey, Mary Powell, Angela Anderies, and Sabena Mellmann-Brown; special thanks also to Ward McCaughey, Wyman Schmidt, and Don Despain for helpful discussions and logistic support in the field.

We wanted to know the effect of 100% outcrossing on growth and rust resistance in whitebark pine, especially in stands with high mortality. We chose two stands. One with blister rust mortality over 90% (Gisborne Mtn. in North Idaho) and one with no mortality by blister rust (Palmer Mtn. near Gardiner, Montana).

Ten trees were chosen at each site as flower trees and ten different trees as pollen trees. Each flower tree was pollinated with a pollen mix from Gisborne (GIS.MIX) and Palmer (PAL.MIX). Natural (also called wind or open-pollination) seed was also collected. Crosses were made in 1993 at Gisborne. This was a very cool and wet snowy year and so flowers at Palmer did not emerge. The pollen from Gisborne was collected in 1993 and the pollen for Palmer had been collected in 1992 and stored in a freezer. Upon request, Ward will provide specifications for storing pollen. Flowers were pollinated three times, separated by 2-3 days (depending on weather-most of the time it was raining).

Flowers and developing conelets were observed several times during the summer. In June 1994 the developing cones were bagged with a cloth cone bag to keep insects and birds away. The birds were already eating seed June 15th. Hardware cloth bags were put on in July. Cones were collected August 28, 1994 and yes it started to rain. Cones were measured and seed extracted individually. Data were taken on length and width of cone, number of seeds remaining in cone after removing scales and turning the cone upside down and tapping with pencil three times, the number of fertile scales (those that showed evidence of seed production), the number of seed and damage by insects or the Nutcracker.

Tables 1-3 show summary data of the three types of crosses and Table 4 is an example of the measurements of the cone a seed data for one cross (GIS.1XGIS.MIX).

Table 3. Cone and seed data for whitebark pine at Gisborne Mountain that were wind-pollinated
Family	Cones #	Seed #	Seed/Cone #	Seed/inch #	Seed Retained %	Possible Seed %
GIS 1	12	646	56	23	31	53
GIS 9	1	16	16	9	50	26
GIS 13	6	263	45	20	12	52
GIS 14	10	269	27	19	26	53
TOTAL	29	1194	144	71	119	184
AVERAGE	7	299	36	18	30	46
Cones include damaged and undamaged cones Seed is the number of seed from all cones Seed/Cone is the number of seed from undamaged cones Seed/inch is from undamaged cones Possible seed is the number of scales that should have had seedx2

Lachmund, H.G. 1933. Method of determining age of blister rust infection on western white pine. Journal of Agricultural Research 46(8):675-693.

Ehrlich, J. and R.S. Opie. 1940. Mycelial extent beyond blister rust cankerson Pinus monticola. Phytopathology 30(7):611-620.

Brown, D.H. and D.A. Graham. 1967. White pine blister rust survey in Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah. On file at IFSL and FSL Moscow, ID.

Krebill, R.G. and R.J. Hoff. 1995. Update on Cronartium ribicola in Pinus albicaulis in Rocky Mountains, USA. Proc. 4th IUFRO Rusts of Pines Working Party Conf., Tsukuba: 119-126.

Tomback, D.F., J.K. Clary, J. Koehler, R.J. Hoff, and S.F. Arno. 1995. The effects of blister rust on post-fire regeneration of whitebark pine: The Sundance burn of northern Idaho, USA. Conservation Biology 9(3):654-664.

The symposium: "Restoring Whitebark Pine Ecosystem -- A Field Workshop" has been postponed until September of 1998 because research project results have been delayed and because of budget constraints. The tentative dates for this symposium are Sept 8-11, 1996. More information about this symposium will be published in the next issue of Nutcracker Notes.

NUTCRACKER NOTES is a vehicle for the dispersal of information on all facets of whitebark pine ecosystems. Summaries of research results and management projects in whitebark pine forests are presented to provide readers state-of-the-art information. The purpose of this newsletter is to distribute timely information so that land managers and scientists can understand and deal with important ecological issues in the whitebark pine ecosystem. Issues of NUTCRACKER NOTES will be numbered and published 1-3 times a year depending on available material.

Submission of Articles: Everyone is invited to submit articles to NUTCRACKER NOTES. These articles should be mailed to Nutcracker Notes, c/o Bob Keane, Intermountain Fire Sciences Lab, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807. If possible, they should be submitted electronically to B.KEANE:S22L01A over the Data General, or written to a floppy disc (WordPerfect text processing) and then mailed. You are encouraged to submit articles to improve this information network.

Newsletter Format: Articles submitted to NUTCRACKER NOTES will be presented in the newsletter under three main categories: Management News and Notes, Research News and Notes, and Publication and Events Alert. Management News describes current activities, problems, observations, conditions planned or implemented by land management agencies in whitebark pine forests. Research News describes current or planned research projects in these ecosystems. Publication and Events Alert is simply a list of current events and published information that may be of interest to readers of the newsletter. At the end of the newsletter the reader will find a complete list of all authors along with their addresses. There will usually be an editorial at the beginning of the newsletter to highlight important topics and provide a forum for opinions.

Ray Hoff
Intermountain Research Station
Forestry Sciences Lab
1221 South Main Street
Moscow, ID 83843
R.HOFF:S22L04A

Mike Liu
Fortine Ranger District
P.O. Box 116
Fortine, MT 59918
(406) 882-4451
M.LIU:R01F14D03A

Ward W. McCaughey
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Intermountain Research Station
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717-0278
(W.MCCAUGHEY:R01F11A)

Steve Nadeau, Wildlife Biologist
Idaho Fish and Game
1540 Warner Ave
Lewiston, ID 83501
(208) 799-5010

Regine M. Rochefort
Mount Rainier National Park
Tahoma Woods Star Soute
Ashford, WA 98304
(206) 569-2211 ext 3374
Internet: gina_rochefort@nps.gov

Jonathan Smith
University of Idaho
Department of Forest Resources
Moscow, ID 83844
208/885-7509
smit9423@uidaho.edu

Diana F. Tomback, Professor
Department of Biology
University of Colorado at Denver
P.O. Box 173364
Denver, CO 80217-3364

Art Zaak, Ecologist
Idaho Panhandle National Forest
3815 Schreiber Way
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814-8363
DG: A.ZAAK:R01F04A

Table 4. Cone and seed data for whitebark pine family number 1 at Gisborne, artificially pollinated with pollen from Gisborne
Cone Number	Cone Length inch	Cone Width Inch	Seed Total #	Seed Retained #	Fertile Scales #	Animal Damage
1	4.00	2.63	125	111	70
2	4.00	2.25	127	52	82	Ins
3	3.75	2.13	117	29	71	Ins
4	3.63	2.63	108	69	72
5	3.50	2.25	125	34	73	Ins
6	3.50	2.25	107	30	73	Ins
7	3.25	2.50	94	56	55
8	3.25	2.50	85	60	65
9	3.13	2.13	102	29	67	Ins
10	3.00	2.00	95	4	82	Ins
11	2.38	1.75	53	0	42	Ins
Total	37.39	25.02	1138	474	752
Average	3.40	2.27	103	43	68
Plus 253 seed from 5 badly damaged cones by insects and bird Total Seed 1391

Average seed/inch of cone	24	1138/37.39
Percent retained in cone	42	474/1138
Percent seed of possible	76	1138(752 x 2)

Table 1. Cone and seed data for whitebark pine at Gisborne Mountain artificially pollinated with a pollen mix from 10 separate Gisborne trees (i.e. families)
Family	Cones #	Seed #	Seed/Cone #	Seed/inch #	Seed Retained %	Possible Seed %

GIS 1	16	1391	103	24	42	76
GIS 2	9	669	65	28	57	73
GIS 5	1	66	66	28	6	72
GIS 6	7	442	63	25	50	59
GIS 9	45	2920	79	31	64	81
GIS 10	17	586	64	25	34	58
GIS 13	12	814	81	26	11	75
GIS 14	15	1053	93	34	18	79
GIS 20	5	354	71	30	41	62
GIS 47	15	633	45	16	29	37
Total	142	8928	730	267	352	672
Average	14	893	73	27	35	67
Cones include damaged and undamaged cones Seed is the number of seed from all cones Seed/Cone is the number of seed from undamaged cones Seed/inch is from undamaged cones Possible seed is the number of scales that should have had seedx2

Table 2. Cone and seed data for whitebark pine at Gisborne Mountain artificially pollinated with a pollen mix from 10 Palmer trees (i.e. families)
Family	Cones #	Seed #	Seed/Cone #	Seed/inch #	Seed Retained %	Possible Seed %
GIS 1	17	715	58	20	25	51
GIS 2	4	252	63	25	81	72
GIS 5	9	605	70	25	43	54
GIS 6	8	347	43	21	47	49
GIS 9	5	349	70	25	54	86
GIS 10	8	521	65	22	19	49
GIS 13	15	1062	74	23	8	69
GIS 14	10	453	46	23	20	43
GIS 20	11	730	73	30	35	71
GIS 47	15	804	52	18	23	41
Total	102	5838	614	232	355	585
Cones include damaged and undamaged cones Seed is the number of seed from all cones Seed/Cone is the number of seed from undamaged cones Seed/inch is from undamaged cones Possible seed is the number of scales that should have had seedx2 Fertile scales for GIS 2 were estimated