United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-935

November

2016

Forest Service Research and 

Development: Strategic Vision 

for the Experimental Forests and 

Ranges Network

Peter A. Stine
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and 

institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating 

based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income 

derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior 

civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases 

apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should 

contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, 

program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html 

and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the 

information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. 

Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Author

Peter A. Stine is a biogeographer (retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Drive, Davis, CA 

95618.

Cover: A wireless “Smart Forest” system, such as this installation at H.J. Andrews 

Experimental Forest in Oregon, allows real-time data and images from remote forest 

and stream sites to be transmitted to the Web. Photo by Sherri Johnson.
Abstract

Stine, Peter A. 2016. Forest Service Research and Development: strategic vision 

for the experimental forests and ranges network. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-935. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 198 p. 

The 80 official experimental forests and ranges (EFR) administered by the 

U.S. Forest Service have provided a remarkable collection of research findings over 

the last 100 years, helping the agency address information needs related to forest 

and rangeland management. Long-term data sets are one of the most significant 

contributions of the EFR system, in particular, the ongoing, long-term studies of 

the effects of a changing climate on natural resources, streamflow, vegetation, and 

biogeochemistry from experimental watersheds. These data are crucial for examining ecosystem services from forests over time and are of sufficiently long duration 

now to be extremely valuable for quantifying the extent of changing climate. We 

describe a vision for building on the knowledge legacy of EFRs by joining them in 

a functional, coordinated research, outreach, and partnership network. We present 

a strategic analysis of options for implementing this network, including measurable criteria for evaluating the current and future potential of EFRs, identification 

of common minimum levels of infrastructure that could be shared by EFRs, and 

identification of the assets necessary so that the value of science and monitoring 

efforts can be maximized across a network of EFRs. 

Keywords: Experimental forests and ranges, network, monitoring, data 

management, long-term database.
Contents

1 Chapter 1: The Experimental Forest and Range Network

1 Introduction

2 Purpose

3 Scope and Format

3 Background 

3 History and Accomplishments

5 Overview of the Current EFR Network

11 Ecosystem Diversity of EFRs

17 Facilities Assets on EFRs

24 Information Assets on EFRs

25 Current Costs of Operation

27 Management Structure Supporting EFRs

27 The Role of External Funding

29 Products and Services from EFRs

42 Experimental Forest and Range Community of Interest

47 Chapter 2: Looking to the Future

47 The Need for a Networked Organization

61 Chapter 3: The Future of the EFR Network

61 Why a Network?

62 What Is the Niche for the EFR Network?

65 Priorities and Expectations

66 Managing and Exploiting EFR Facilities and Information Assets

69 Managing Our Facilities Assets

71 Chapter 4: Strategy for Moving EFRs Forward

71 Broad Approach to Achieveing Objectives

72 Current Situation and Challenges 

73 Identifying and Promoting Our Competitive Advantages

75 Evaluating Our Current EFRs: Criteria for EFR Tiers

78 Networking and Marketing

79 Identifying and Working With Partners

80 Education and Outreach Opportunities 

82 Addressing the Status of Our Facilities Assets 

83 Safety Considerations 

84 Relationship to the Greater Forest Service Inventory Monitoring and 

Assessment Program

84 Data Archiving and Sharing

86 Information Management: Strategies for Moving Forward

86 Approach 1: Fully Decentralized 
iii

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

86 Approach 2: Fully Decentralized With Central Coordination

87 Approach 3: Partially Decentralized With Substantial Central Coordination 

and Support

87 Approach 4: Fully Centralized

89 Other Business Management Considerations

91 Chapter 5: Strategic Path Alternatives for EFRs 

96 Path 1: Limited Capacity 

96 Science 

96 Portfolio 

96 Infrastructure 

96 Data Management 

97 Personnel

97 Organization

97 Partnerships

97 Outreach

97 Anticipated Consequences of Path 1 

98 Path 2: Status Quo Plus

98 Science 

98 Portfolio

99 Infrastructure 

99 Data Management

99 Personnel

100 Organization

100 Partnerships 

100 Outreach

100 Anticipated Consequences of Path 2

100 Path 3: EFRs As an Experimentation Network

101 Science 

101 Portfolio

101 Infrastructure

102 Data Management

102 Personnel

103 Organization

103 Partnerships

103 Outreach

103 Anticipated Consequences of Path 3 

104 Path 4: EFRs As a Synthesis Network

104 Science 

106 Portfolio

106 Infrastructure
iv

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

106 Data Management

108 Personnel 

109 Organization 

110 Partnerships

110 Outreach

111 Anticipated Consequences of Path 4

111 Path 5: EFRs as R&D’s Core Research Platform

112 Science 

112 Portfolio

113 Infrastructure

113 Data Management

114 Personnel

114 Organization

114 Partnerships

115 Outreach

115 Anticipated Consequences of Path 5

116 Path 6: Experimental Landscapes 

117 Science 

117 Portfolio 

118 Infrastructure 

118 Data Management 

118 Personnel 

119 Organization 

119 Partnerships 

120 Outreach 

120 Anticipated Consequences of Path 6 

121 Acknowledgments

121 Literature Cited

125 Appendix 1: Smart Forests for the 21st Century—

A New Initiative to Develop Cyber Infrastructure 

127 The Solution: “Smart Forest” Initiative

130 Section II: First Smart Forests

131 Section III: Initial Infrastructure and Measurements

133 Section IV—Initial and Continuing Costs

135 Appendix 2: Cross-Experimental Forest and Range Research 

and Monitoring

161 39. Basic Meteorological Station

190 31. Animal Damage Control (ADC) on the Chippewa National Forest 

196 Appendix 3: Extracting Value From Experimental Forest and 

Range Information Assets
1

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Introduction

The 80 experimental forests and ranges (EFRs)1 currently managed throughout the 

United States by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, are valuable assets. They have an impressive history of scientific contributions and are 

uniquely positioned to address current and emerging natural resource challenges. 

Our EFRs encompass an assortment of field sites covering more than 235,000 ha 

(580,000 acres). These sites (fig. 1) are located in almost every forested ecoregion 

in the Nation, and are found in 32 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

They offer a wide variety of historical data sets as old as 100 years, and have been 

used by hundreds of past and current Forest Service scientists, academic and other 

partners, and countless students pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees. 

Basic and applied research activities on EFRs have provided a more thorough 

understanding of forested ecosystems and answers to pressing questions about 

how to manage public and private lands. They also have provided approaches 

to improve the effectiveness of management actions and better understand the 

potential unintended impacts of these activities, as well as strategies to mitigate 

or avoid these impacts. Most EFRs also have served as focal points for education 

and demonstration and as a venue for the interaction between land managers and 

scientists. These facilities offer some of the few places in the United States where 

ecological and land management research can be conducted over large areas and 

long time frames.

The leadership of the Forest Service’s Research and Development (R&D) 

branch has important choices to make about EFRs. With the significant asset the 

EFRs represent comes both enormous potential and considerable responsibility. 

Until recently, each of the 80 EFRs was managed largely independently of the others, addressing issues of local importance. Recently, R&D has begun to recognize 

the potential of using networks of these sites (and those of collaborating partners) to 

address questions of regional to continental significance. Many of the sites already 

have prestigious reputations within the scientific community, but linking them in 

a network approach has large, untapped promise to explore scientific questions of 

broader significance. 

To date, we have managed these assets in a largely extemporaneous manner. 

Each EFR generally fends for itself, and investments for science and infrastructure 

have generally been made in an unorganized, opportunistic fashion. Under this 

1

 In the draft revision to Forest Service Manual 4062—Experimental Forests, Ranges, 

Grasslands and Watersheds, these sites are technically referred to as “experimental areas.” 

However, for purposes of this report, we will use the term “experimental forests and 

ranges,” abbreviated as “EFRs.”

Chapter 1: The Experimental Forest and Range Network

To date, we have 

managed these 

assets in a largely 

extemporaneous 

manner. Each EFR 

generally fends for 

itself, and investments 

for science and 

infrastructure have 

generally been made 

in an unorganized, 

opportunistic fashion.
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

model, the existing buildings, scientific infrastructure, and research investments are 

maintained at considerable cost per site, with costs varying among EFRs. A more 

organized approach to scientific and facilities investment is required to realize the 

added value that these assets would offer as a network.

Purpose

This report represents a “Strategic Vision” for the future of the EFR network. Its 

goal is to evaluate an array of alternative paths that could be chosen for the future 

of the EFR network and present to Forest Service R&D leadership a recommended 

path. Each path carries with it different opportunities and associated required 

investments, and the six alternative paths presented offer a full spectrum of choices. 

Figure 1—Locations of Forest Service Research and Development facilities.
3

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Scope and Format

To describe this strategic vision, we take a comprehensive look at the past, present, 

and future of the collection of EFRs and their potential as a functional network. It 

is intended to provide the full context for making important and difficult decisions 

about the future of this network. There are many different choices that Forest Service R&D leadership could make, and each choice carries significant implications 

for the future of each EFR, the network as a whole, and the rest of Forest Service 

research. We expect the array of information and data contained in this report to 

enable Forest Service R&D leadership to be well prepared to make the subsequent 

necessary decisions.

Background 

History and Accomplishments

Our interest in managing and conserving forests dates back to the early years of the 

Nation. The reasons for this interest have evolved over time, but fundamentally we 

have always valued, and will continue to value, the wealth of what we now refer to as 

“ecosystem services” that come from forests throughout the United States. In 1882, 

in regard to fish and wildlife resources, prominent early zoologist and conservationist George Bird Grinnell explained this perspective as well as anyone might today: 

“No woods, no game; no woods, no water; and no water, no fish.” 

Early efforts to manage and conserve forests began before the turn of the 20th

century. With these actions came the first steps toward learning how to manage 

forests. Academic institutions established schools dedicated to forestry and professional societies. The important contributions made and essential role performed by 

research in forest management were recognized very early on, as President Theodore Roosevelt stated in 1903 (Miller and Staebler 2004):

I believe that there is no body of men who have it in their power today 

to do a greater service to the country than those engaged in the scientific 

study of, and practical application of, approved methods of forestry for the 

preservation of the woods of the United States. 

The formal establishment of the Forest Service in 1905 was a milestone in our 

history of concern for the condition of our forests. The Forest Service initially hired 

many forestry graduates from universities to address the long list of challenges. 

Although the range of land and resource management challenges at the turn of the 

20th century was quite different from the challenges managers now face in the early 

stages of the 21st century, the need for scientific information was already apparent, 

as was the importance of having a research arm to help guide management. 

Although land and 

resource management 

challenges at the turn 

of the 20th century 

were quite different 

from the challenges 

that managers now 

face, the need for 

scientific information 

was already apparent, 

as was the importance 

of having a research 

arm to help guide 

management. 
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

In the very early days of the Forest Service, as reported by Jeremy Young 

(2010), Raphael Zon, the first Chief of the Bureau of Silvics (the origin of the R&D 

branch of the Forest Service) argued for what he believed to be one of the Forest 

Service’s most significant achievements in its early years, the creation of:

... the experiment stations in the West ... (which) are now building the 

scientific foundation upon which the future practice of American forestry is 

to rest (1913).

At the very onset of the Forest Service, Zon made the case to the first Forest 

Service Chief, Gifford Pinchot, that there was a need for data to support forest 

management recommendations (Young 2010). He developed a 23-page plan for 

creating “Forest Experiment Stations” that included a model new to the United 

States. Under it, experimental work would be carried out under independent direction through permanent forest experiment stations. Based on the ideas of Zon and 

Bernard Fernow (Chief of the Department of Agriculture Division of Forestry and 

later first Dean of the Cornell School of Forestry), and with Pinchot’s leadership, the 

first experimental forest was established in 1908. 

The legislative history pertaining to EFRs includes two significant milestones. 

Although several experimental forests had been previously established, the McSweeney-McNary Act in 1928 set the stage for designation of most of the experimental 

forests that now exist. The act authorized and directed the Secretary of Agriculture:

... to conduct such investigations, experiments, and tests as he may deem 

necessary .... in order to determine, demonstrate, and promulgate the best 

methods of reforestation and of growing, managing, and utilizing timber, 

forage, and other forest products, of maintaining favorable conditions of 

water flow and the prevention of erosion, of protecting timber and other 

forest growth from fire, insects, disease or other harmful agencies, of 

obtaining the fullest and most effective use of forest land, and to determine 

and promulgate the economic considerations which should underlie the 

establishment of sound policies for the management of forest land and the 

utilization of forest products.

A full 50 years later, a more contemporary point of view was given to the legislative direction. With the passage of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Research Act of 1978, Congress found that:

Scientific discoveries and technological advances must be made and 

applied to support the protection, management, and utilization of the 

nation’s renewable resources. It is the purpose of this Act to authorize the 
5

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Secretary of Agriculture to implement a comprehensive program of forest 

and rangeland renewable resources research and dissemination of the findings of such research. 

Section 4(a) of the act stated, “In implementing this Act, the Secretary is authorized to establish and maintain a system of experiment stations, research laboratories, experimental areas and other forest and rangeland research facilities.”

Our ability to conduct scientific research, to apply our research findings on the 

public lands managed by the Forest Service, and to transmit the lessons we learn, 

sets us apart as a natural resource agency. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Park Service once had a similar relationship between their research and 

management branches, but that was changed in the early 1990s when research was 

removed from these two bureaus and ultimately placed within a separate bureau, 

the U.S. Geological Survey. The National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife 

Service continue to aspire to re-develop their own research capabilities. 

As a resource management agency, the Forest Service has unique and valuable 

opportunities to apply the findings of its R&D branch toward its land management 

responsibilities. The EFR network is central to the capabilities to achieve this application. The development of these sites and their respective accomplishments over the last 

100 years, largely through very modest and uncoordinated financial and staff support, 

has been remarkable. Where will this irreplaceable asset be in another 100 years? 

We must reexamine and further define our direction for the management and 

use of EFRs. We must also revitalize the relationship between the National Forest 

System (NFS) and Forest Service R&D branches to appropriately manage those 

lands designated as EFRs. This Strategic Vision provides a foundation from which 

we can take that important fresh and thorough look at the forest and range management challenges of today and tomorrow, and how we can strategically and effectively apply EFR assets to those tasks.

Overview of the Current EFR Network

We have 80 official EFRs; this designation includes all locations where “establishment records” have been prepared and approved by the Chief of the Forest Service 

according to FSM 4062 direction. The content of establishment records, and the 

process by which each is prepared and approved, are specifically described in FSM 

4062.1. Six are titled to and managed solely by Forest Service R&D, eight are on 

state lands, two are on combinations of state and NFS lands, one is on Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) land, one is on private land, and 62 are on NFS lands 

(table 1). Each of the EFRs is directed and managed by the research station in 

whose area it is located. 
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Of the 80 current EFRs, 65 were established by 1960; the first was Fort Valley 

EF in northern Arizona, established in 1908. Only 15 new EFRs have been added in 

the last 50 years; the most recent addition was Héen Latinee EF in southeast Alaska, 

established in 2009. Over 30 previously designated EFRs have been eliminated in 

the last 25 years as support for infrastructure maintenance and for collection and 

maintenance of long-term experiments and data sets has declined. Inadequate clarity of responsibilities between R&D and NFS has also diminished support. In addition, although there are advantages to decentralization of R&D management and 

operations, it is difficult to direct and execute a national network under the current 

organizational structure, in which each research station directs its own program.

EFRs were established to promote and facilitate research. However, conflicting 

resource demands and growing complications in the area of land management administration threaten the viability of continued research opportunities on these EFRs. 

The challenges of managing the 80 EFRs differ around the country. Regulatory 

mandates for NFS lands are not designed for the special needs of EFRs (Adams et al. 

2004), in that it can be difficult to navigate the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requirements for manipulative experiments. Authority for management decisions and the application of regulations has been uncertain; the respective roles of line officers in the NFS and R&D are 

often not clear. The application of NEPA on EFRs has a different contextual setting 

than on other national forest lands. First, R&D activities on EFRs do not implement 

forest plans. Rather, they implement selected research studies within the Forest 

Service R&D program areas. Research Work Unit Descriptions, in particular, usually 

have a 5-year time frame. A delay of 18 months to 2 years for initiating research and 

demonstration projects stemming from NEPA requirements adversely affects the 

ability to expeditiously implement research programs. In addition, unlike the NEPA 

process typically conducted on regular NFS projects, a given research study is not 

one among several alternatives that could be implemented. Studies are designed to 

test specific hypotheses, and the only other alternative is not to do the study. 

Another issue is non-research use of EFRs (on NFS lands), which may conflict 

with the research mission for which EFRs were established. These non-research 

uses potentially affect existing studies and preclude future research opportunities. 

Often, regions, forests, or districts allow uses or make land use decisions that 

conflict with the research mission. This includes the encouragement of recreational activity and development of recreational attractions (e.g., trails) within 

EFRs. Current policy and provisions of the NFMA and regulations and directives 

pursuant to this act and others are impeding the ability of scientists to conduct 

research programs needed for prudent forest management on these experimental 

Unlike the NEPA 

process typically 

conducted on National 

Forest System projects, 

a given research study 

is not one of several 

alternatives. Studies 

are designed to test 

specific hypotheses, 

and the only other 

alternative is not to do 

the study. 
7

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Table 1—USDA Forest Service experimental forests and ranges (see fig. 3 for locations)

Number Name Station Region

Land ownership/

managment

State or 

territory

Year 

established Acres

1 Estate Thomas EF IITF None IITF U.S. Virgin 

Islands

1964 148

2 Luquillo EF IITF 8 El Yunque NF Puerto Rico 1956 27,890

3 Argonne EF NRS 9 ChequamegonNicolet NFWisconsin 1947 6,499

4 Bartlett EF NRS 9 White Mountain NF New Hampshire 1931 2,600

5 Big Falls EF NRS None Minnesota state land Minnesota 1961 2,040

6 Coulee EF NRS None Wisconsin state land Wisconsin 1960 3,000

7 Cutfoot EF NRS 9 Chippewa NF Minnesota 1932 3,100

8 Dukes (Upper 

Peninsula) EF

NRS 9 Hiawatha NF Minnesota 1926 5,500

9 Fernow EF NRS 9 Monongahela NF West Virginia 1934 4,700

10 Harshaw Farm NRS Wisconsin 1972 540

11 Hubbard Brook EF NRS 9 White Mountain NF New Hampshire 1955 7,750

12 Kane EF NRS 9 Allegheny NF Pennsylvania 1932 3,463

13 Kaskaskia EF NRS 9 Shawnee NF Illinois 1942 2,150

14 Kawishiwi EF NRS 9 Superior NF Minnesota 1931 116

15 Lower Peninsula EF NRS 9 Huron-Manistee NF Michigan 1954 3,400

16 Marcell EF NRS 9 Chippewa NF, State 

of Minnesota, Itasca 

County, and private 

landowners

Minnesota 1962 2,219

17 Massabesic EF NRS None NRS Maine 1939 3,700

18 Paoli EF NRS 9 WayneHoosier NF Indiana 1963 632

19 Penobscot EF NRS None University of Maine 

Foundation

Maine 1950 4,000

20 Pike Bay EF NRS 9 Chippewa NF Minnesota 1932 3,914

21 Silas Little EF 

(Lebanon)

NRS None State of New Jersey 

and FS

New Jersey 1933 590

22 Sinkin EF NRS 9 Mark Twain NF Missouri 1950 4100

23 Udell EF NRS 9 HuronManistee NF Michigan 1961 3800

24 Vinton Furnace EF NRS None Ohio state land Ohio 1952 1,201

25 Bonanza Creek EF PNW None Alaska state land Alaska 1963 12,486

26 Cascade Head EF PNW 6 Siuslaw NF Oregon 1934 12,424

27 Entiat EF PNW 6 Wenatchee NF Washington 1957 4,619

28 Héen Latinee EF PNW 6 Tongass NF Alaska 2009 25,595

29 H.J. Andrews EF PNW 6 Willamette NF Oregon 1948 15,852

30 Maybeso EF PNW 10 Tongass NF Alaska 1956 10,996

31 Pringle Falls EF PNW 6 Deschutes NF Oregon 1931 11,053
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Number Name Station Region

Land ownership/

managment

State or 

territory

Year 

established Acres

32 South Umpqua EF PNW 6 Umpqua NF Oregon 1951 650

33 Starkey EF&R PNW 6 Wallowa-Whitman 

NF

Oregon 1940 27,506

34 Wind River EF PNW 6 Gifford Pinchot NF Washington 1932 10,811

35 Blacks Mountain EF PSW 5 Lassen NF California 1934 9,180

36 Caspar Creek EW PSW None California state land California 1962 2,243

37 Challenge EF PSW 5 Plumas NF California 1942 3,572

38 Hawaii Tropical EF PSW None Hawaii state land Hawaii 2007 48,228

39 North Mountain EF PSW 5 BLM California 1964 10,740

40 Onion Creek EF PSW 5 Tahoe NF California 1958 2,964

41 Redwood EF PSW 5 Six Rivers NF California 1940 1,240

42 Sagehen EF PSW 5 Tahoe NF California 2005 8,100

43 San Dimas EF PSW 5 Angeles NF California 1933 17,154

44 San Joaquin ER PSW None PSW California 1934 4,542

45 Stanislaus-Tuolumne 

EF

PSW 5 Stanislaus NF California 1943 1,700

46 Swain Mountain EF PSW 5 Lassen NF California 1932 6,155

47 Teakettle EF PSW 5 Sierra NF California 1938 32,113

48 Black Hills EF RMRS 2 Black Hills NF South Dakota 1961 3,436

49 Boise Basin EF RMRS 4 Boise NF Idaho 1933 8,736

50 Coram EF RMRS 1 Flathead NF Montana 1933 7,326

51 Deception Creek EF RMRS 1 Idaho Panhandle NF Idaho 1933 3,520

52 Desert ER RMRS None RMRS Utah 1933 55,575

53 Fort Valley EF RMRS 3 Coconino and Kaibab 

NF

Arizona 1908 5,261

54 Fraser EF RMRS 2 Arapaho-Roosevelt 

NF

Colorado 1937 22,991

55 Glacier Lake 

Ecosystem ES

RMRS 2 Medicine Bow NF Wyoming 1994 1,482

56 Great Basin ER RMRS 4 MantiLaSal NF Utah 1912 4,597

57 Long Valley EF RMRS 3 Coconino-Sitgreaves 

NF

Arizona 1936 2,534

58 Manitou EF RMRS 2 Pike San Isabel NF Colorado 1936 16,692

59 Priest River EF RMRS 1 Idaho Panhandle NF Idaho 1911 6,397

60 Sierra Ancha ER RMRS 3 Tonto NF Arizona 1932 13,249

61 Tenderfoot Creek EF RMRS 1 Lewis and Clark NF Montana 1961 9,123

62 Alum Creek EF SRS 8 Ouachita NF Arkansas 1959 4,658

63 Bent Creek EF SRS 8 Pisgah NF North Carolina 1925 6,301

64 Blue Valley EF SRS 8 Nantahala NF North Carolina 1964 1,300

65 Calhoun EF SRS 8 Sumter NF South Carolina 1947 5,135

Table 1—USDA Forest Service experimental forests and ranges (continued)
9

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Number Name Station Region

Land ownership/

managment

State or 

territory

Year 

established Acres

66 Chipola EF SRS None Southern Research 

Station

Florida 1952 640

67 Coweeta Hydrologic 

Lab

SRS 8 Nantahala-Pisgah NF North Carolina 1934 5,482

68 Crossett EF SRS 8 Ouachita NF Arkansas 1934 1,680

69 Delta EF SRS None Mississippi state land Mississippi 1945 2,580

70 Escambia EF SRS None Cedar Creek Land 

and Timber, Inc. 

Alabama 1947 3,000

71 Harrison EF SRS 8 Desoto NF Mississippi 1934 4,107

72 Hitchiti EF SRS 8 Oconee NF Georgia 1946 4,735

73 Henry R. Koen EF SRS 8 Ozark-St. Francis NF Arkansas 1950 720

74 Olustee EF SRS 8 Osceola NF Florida 1931 3,135

75 Palustris EF SRS 8 Kisatchie NF Louisiana 1935 7,500

76 Santee EF SRS 8 Francis Marion NF South Carolina 1937 6,101

77 Scull Shoals EF SRS 8 Oconee NF Georgia 1959 4487

78 Stephen F. Austin EF SRS 8 Angelina NF Texas 1945 2649

70 Sylamore EF SRS 8 Ozark-St. Francis NF Arkansas 1934 4290

80 Tallahatchie EF SRS 8 Holly Springs NF Mississippi 1950 3499

609,893

Cooperating experimental forests and ranges:

1 Caribou-Poker Creek 

RW

PNW None Alaska state land Alaska 1969 25,688

2 Olympic 

Experimental State 

Forest

State of Washington Washington none Washington 

state land

3 Baltimore Ecosystem 

Study

NRS 9 Diverse public, private 

and community lands

Maryland 1997 1,660,548

4 Howland Forest NRS None Northeast Wilderness 

Trust

Maine 1984 558

5 Swanton Pacific 

Ranch

PSW None California Polytechnic 

State University

California 2015 3,200

1,924,306

BLM = Bureau of Land Management; EF = experimental forest; ER = experimental range; NF = national forest; IITF = International Institute of Tropical 

Forestry; NRS = Northern Research Station; PNW = Pacific Northwest Research Station; PSW = Pacific Southwest Research Station; RMRS = Rocky 

Mountain Research Station; SRS = Southern Research Station.

Table 1—USDA Forest Service experimental forests and ranges (continued)
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

sites. As a result, however, revisions to FSM 4062 are in progress and should 

improve Forest Service R&D’s ability to manage EFRs for their intended purpose. 

The past and current research and monitoring agendas of the 80 EFRs each 

reflect their individual purpose for being established. Over the history of EFR establishment, there was no intention or expression of a common template for all EFRs. 

Some have focused on one or two topics such as silviculture or genetics research. 

Others, especially the more recent additions, have a broader ecosystems orientation 

and tend to be larger in area. The size and configuration of the EFRs reflects these 

varying purposes. Figure 2 displays the range of size classes among the 80 EFRs. 

Of the total, 18 are smaller than 1000 ha (2,500 ac) while 16 are larger than 4000 ha 

(10,000 ac). Size and configuration clearly dictate what kind of research is possible. 

Three recent additions to the system, Sagehen EF, Hawaii Tropical EF, and Héen 

Latinee EF, demonstrate a trend toward larger experimental forests that have the 

capacity to examine questions at a landscape scale and thus address some of the 

emerging concerns of land managers that manifest at that larger spatial scale. There 

is also the dramatic need for a new research and monitoring frontier in long-term 

forest research along the entire rural to urban gradient, specifically the urban 

ecological community. 

Number of EFRs in thousand-acre size increments

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

International Institute of Tropical Forestry

Northern Research Station

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Pacific Southwest Research Station

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Southern Research Station

Acres

Missing:

Desert Experimental Range (55,575 acres)

Hawaii Tropical Experimental Forest (48,228 acres)

Research Station

Figure 2—Range of size classes of the 80 experimental forests and ranges.
11

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Figure 3—Distribution of experimental forests and ranges among the Bailey Ecoregion system of ecological divisions and provinces.

Ecosystem Diversity of EFRs

The diversity of ecoregion types represented by the existing 80 sites is remarkable. Under the Bailey Ecoregion schema (Bailey 1995) the United States 

includes four ecological domains, 25 ecological divisions, and 52 ecological provinces. The ecological domains level is too coarse for a meaningful examination 

of representation; however, the ecological division and ecological province scales 

provide insight into how well the 80 EFRs represent the ecological diversity of 

the United States. 

Do the current 80 EFRs represent this ecological diversity? Figure 3 illustrates 

how the 80 EFRs are distributed amongst the ecological divisions and provinces. 

Among the 25 ecological divisions in the Bailey Ecoregion schema (which includes 
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

both lowland and mountainous terrain as separate divisions) five are assumed to 

have little to no forest or shrubland and do not enter into this analysis (table 2). 

Of the remaining 20, only four, Subarctic, Hot Continental, Tropical/Subtropical 

Steppe, and Temperate Desert may be underrepresented (as defined by <1 EFR per 

100,000 square km). The Hot Continental Division, essentially the lowland hardwood forests of the Midwest and East, is large and contains eight EFRs, but still is 

slightly underrepresented given the threshold (i.e., numbers of EFRs per unit area) 

defined above. The Subarctic Division is dominated by boreal forest. The other two 

divisions are sparse shrubland and each has one or more EFRs. With the exception 

of the subarctic taiga forest type, a strong case can be made that, at the ecological 

division level, the distribution of existing EFRs well represents the diversity of forest and rangeland types throughout the United States at this level of analysis.

Table 2—Ecoregion divisions in the experimental forests and range (EFR) network

Ecoregion division Code Area of division

Number of 

EFRs

Number per 

100 000 km2

Square kilometers

Subarctic 130 219 700 0

Subarctic Mountains M130 477 700 1 0.2

Warm Continental 210 381 507 12 3.1

Warm Continental Mountains M210 112 924 2 1.8

Hot Continental 220 969 955 8 0.8

Hot Continental Mountains M220 192 955 5 2.6

Subtropical 230 1 064 749 13 1.2

Subtropical Mountains M230 22 792 1 4.4

Marine 240 38 591 0

Marine Mountains M240 303 807 7 2.3

Mediterranean 260 88 319 2 2.3

Mediterranean Mountains M260 241 388 11 4.6

Tropical/Subtropical Steppe 310 657 342 1 0.2

Tropical/Subtropical Steppe Mountains M310 130 018 2 1.5

Temperate Steppe 330 1 099 973 0

Temperate Steppe Mountains M330 585 081 9 1.5

Temperate Desert 340 689 458 3 0.4

Temperate Desert Mountains M340 112 924 0

Savanna Mountains M410 9 583 2 20.9

Rainforest Mountains M420 16 835 1 5.9

80

Divisions in boldfaced type: like a domain without appreciable forest or shrub cover.

Divisions in italic type: less than one experimental forest and range per 100,000 km2, possible a deficit.

Note: Some divisions, those unlikely to have any forest or shrublands, are not included in this analysis: Tundra, 120; Tundra 

Mountains, M120; Prairie, 250; Tropical/Subtropical Desert, 320; and Savanna, 410.

With the exception of the 

subarctic taiga forest 

type, a strong case 

can be made that, at 

the ecological division 

level, the distribution 

of existing EFRs well 

represents the diversity 

of forest and rangeland 

types throughout the 

United States.
13

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

At the Bailey (1995) ecological province level, perhaps the most appropriate 

level at which to examine representativeness, there are 52 ecological provinces 

across the United States. Nineteen of the 52 do not have an appreciable amount 

of forest or shrubland/rangeland and do not figure into further analysis. Of the 33 

remaining, as many as 12 appear to be underrepresented (defined by <1 EFR per 

100,000 km2) or may have no EFRs at all (table 3). A closer look suggests that two 

of those 12, Eastern Broadleaf Forest (the lowland hardwood forests of the Ohio 

Valley and portions of the upper Midwest), and Intermountain Semidesert/Desert 

(the high desert portion of the Great Basin in Nevada and Utah) have five and two 

EFRs within them, respectively, and are close to the threshold (both at 0.7 per 

100,000 km2

). Four of the 12 ecological provinces, Alaska Range, Lower Mississippi 

Table 3—Ecoregion provinces in the experimental forests and range (EFR) network

Ecoregion province Code Area

Percentage 

of extent in 

United States

Number of 

EFRs within 

province

Number of 

EFRs per 

100,000 km2

Thousands 

of square 

kilometers

Arctic Tundrab 124 49.5 0.5 0 0

Bering Tundra (Northern)b 125 121.5 1.3 0 0

Bering Tundra (Southern)b 126 61.1 0.7 0 0

Brooks Rangeb M121 263.1 2.8 0 0

Seward Peninsulab M125 53.4 0.6 0 0

Ahklun Mountainsb M126 43.3 0.5 0 0

Aleutianb M127 57.5 0.6 0 0

Yukon Plateaus Taigab,d 131 145.3 1.6 0 0

Coastal Trough Taigab,d 135 40.7 0.4 0 0

Upper Yukon Taigab,d 139 33.7 0.4 0 0

Yukon Taiga–Meadow c M131 142.5 1.5 0 0

Alaska Rangee M135 158.0 1.7 1 0.6

Upper Yukon Taiga–Meadowc M139 177.2 1.9 0 0

Laurentian Mixed Foresta 212 381.5 4.1 12 3.1

Adirondack–New Englanda M212 112.9 1.2 2 1.8

Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic)e 221 270.7 2.9 3 1.1

Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Continental)e 222 699.3 7.5 5 0.7

Central Appalachiana M221 176.4 1.9 4 2.3

Ozarka M222 16.6 0.2 1 6.0

Southeastern Mixed Foresta 231 499.9 5.4 6 1.2

Outer Coastal Plain Mixed Foresta 232 450.1 4.8 6 1.3

Lower Mississippi Riverine Foreste 234 114.7 1.2 1 0.9
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Table 3—Ecoregion provinces in the experimental forests and range (EFR) network (continued)

Ecoregion province Code Area

Percentage 

of extent in 

United States

Number of 

EFRs within 

province

Number of 

EFRs per 

100,000 km2

Thousands 

of square 

kilometers

Ouachitaa M231 22.8 0.2 1 4.4

Pacific Lowland Mixed Forestd 242 38.6 0.4 0 0

Cascadea M242 138.3 1.5 5 3.6

Pacific Coastal Mountainsa M244 103.6 1.1 1 1.0

Pacific Gulfa M245 61.9 0.7 1 1.6

Prairie Parkland (temperate)b 251 565.1 6.1 0 0

Prairie Parkland (subtropical)b 255 207.5 2.2 0 0

California Coastal Chaparrald 261 26.7 0.3 0 0

California Dry Steppea 262 49.7 0.5 0 0

California Coastal Steppe/Mixed Forest/

Redwood Foresta

263 11.9 0.1 2 16.8

Sierrana M261 176.9 1.9 9 5.1

California Coastal Rangea M262 64.5 0.7 2 3.1

Great Plans Steppe and Shrubb 311 45.6 0.5 0 0

Colorado Plateau Semidesertb 313 195.0 2.1 1 0.5

Southwest Plateau/Plains Dry Steppe 

and Shrubb

315 416.7 4.5 0 0

Arizona-New Mexico Mountainsa M313 130.0 1.4 2 1.5

Chihuahuan Semidesertb 321 220.7 2.4 0 0

American Semidesert/Desertb 322 227.1 2.4 0 0

Great Plains/Palouse Dry Steppeb 331 752.9 8.1 0 0

Great Plains Steppeb 332 347.1 3.7 0 0

Southern Rocky Mountaina M331 265.0 2.8 3 1.1

Middle Rocky Mountaina M332 211.9 2.8 3 1.4

Northern Rocky Mountaina M333 98.7 1.1 2 2.0

Black Hillsa M334 9.6 0.1 1 10.4

Intermountain Semidesert/Deserte 341 277.4 3.0 2 0.7

Intermountain Semideserte 342 412.1 4.4 1 0.2

Nevada-Utah Mountainsd M341 112.9 1.2 0 0

Evergladesb 411 20.2 0.2 0 0

Puerto Rico (also U.S. Virgin Islands) a M411 9.6 0.1 2 20.9

Hawaiian Islandsa M423 16.8 0.2 1 5.9

 Total 9 305.4 80

a Likely sufficient representation.

b Likely an ecosystem type without appreciable forest or shrub cover.

c Unsure whether this ecosystem type should be considered.

d No representation.

e Perhaps a deficit of representation.
15

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Riverine Forest, Colorado Plateau Semidesert, and Intermountain Semidesert, each 

have one EFR, but an argument could be made to consider adding another. Three 

of the 12 (Yukon Plateaus Taiga, Coastal Trough Taiga, Upper Yukon Taiga) are 

dominated by “taiga” or needle leaf forest, often referred to as boreal forest. The 

Taiga is the forested ecosystem most vulnerable to climate change.

The Holdridge life zone schema is another point of view from which to evaluate 

the ecological diversity of the current distribution of EFRs. This system provides 

an ecosystem classification approach that relies on simple and objective criteria of 

mean annual biotemperature, mean annual precipitation, and elevation to construct 

ecological units called life zones (Lugo et al. 1999). A primary advantage cited by 

some for using this schema is the empirical and objective-based criteria used to 

formulate the life zones. It also is based on climatic driving factors of ecosystem 

processes and recognizes ecophysiological responses of plants (Lugo et al. 1999). 

By using this approach, we find 38 life zones within the conterminous 48 states, 

including 1 boreal, 12 cool temperate, 20 warm temperate, four subtropical, and 1 

tropical zone. 

The total picture of the Holdridge life zones in the United States results in 

a somewhat different story of the distribution of EFRs across the country (fig. 4 

and table 4). The warm temperate moist forest and cool temperate moist forest life 

zones occupy 23 percent and 16 percent of the continental United States, respectively. Each is well represented with 22 EFRs in the warm temperate moist forest 

and 12 EFRs in the cool temperate moist forest. However, many of the Holdridge 

life zones in the United States cover a very small proportion of the landscape. Most 

of the diversity in these life zones is found in the western United States where there 

is significant variation in elevation and humidity over relatively short distances. 

Approximately 30 of the 38 life zones are only found west of the Mississippi River 

and many of these (16) occupy less than 20,000 square kilometers. The ecological 

diversity of the western United States is clearly demonstrated using this ecoregional schema.

Nonetheless, EFR representation in life zones that are larger than 20,000 km2 

and have appreciable amounts of forest or scrub is still reasonably good. Four such 

life zones, however, contain no EFRs (fig. 4):

• Cool temperate subalpine moist forest (38,704 km2)

• Warm temperate desert scrub (157,728 km2)

• Warm temperate montane desert scrub (232,432 km2)

• Warm temperate subalpine moist forest (149,520 km2)

One could argue that none of these life zones represents landscapes with significant amounts of forest or rangelands; however, each of these life zones contains at 
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

least modest amounts of shrub or tree cover. There are also two life zones that have 

one or two EFRs, but given their extent, may merit consideration for another EFR:

• Warm temperate dry forest (1 EFR on 708,000 km2)

• Warm temperate thorn steppe (2 EFRs on 482,624 km2)

Although the foregoing analysis using Holdridge life zones excludes the six 

EFRs found outside the contiguous 48 states, the schema for partitioning the 

landscape into Holdridge life zones can be applied to other localities. It is interesting to note that the Laupahoehoe Unit of the Hawaii Experimental Tropical Forest 

contains native-dominated forested landscapes from lowland forest at 2,300 feet 

(700 m) above sea level extending through four life zones to almost 6,200 feet (1890 

m) in elevation. Héen Latinee in Alaska also has several life zones from sea level to 

high-elevation glaciers.

Figure 4—Distribution of experimental forests and ranges among the Holdridge Life Zones of the conterminous United States.
17

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Facilities Assets on EFRs

Field research is the “bread and butter” of Forest Service R&D. The data that lead 

to the scientific findings, which fuel the publications that inform management and 

policy decisionmaking, are derived from spending time on the forests and ranges 

of the United States. Many logistical challenges to acquiring these data need to be 

considered when planning and executing research. These include:

• Traveling to field sites, sometimes long distances

• Accessing remote or difficult-to-reach field sites

• Selecting placement of study location sites

• Deploying instruments in the field

• Collecting the data (from deployed instruments or through direct observation)

• Consistency in how the data are collected and recorded

• Storing data in secure repositories

• Developing and executing safety procedures for employees

• Maintaining functional equipment

• Providing overnight facilities for field staff

• Converting data to accessible formats

• Adhering to field study protocols

• Ensuring safety in the field. 

When a research program is designed, the focus is understandably on the 

scientific considerations of articulating the research question(s) or hypotheses, 

experimental and sampling design, anticipated data analyses, and expected 

applications of the results. None of this is possible, however, without logistical 

planning and execution. Facilities and other infrastructure have a profound influence on the ability of Forest Service research scientists and their collaborators to 

be successful. 

The EFRs network has been incrementally built over time; each EFR has had 

to take an entrepreneurial approach to achieve what it can. Some have been notably 

successful in building a functional infrastructure with dormitories, laboratories, 

work buildings, and other facilities to support the research. Most EFRs have very 

modest facilities developed through one or two fleeting opportunities to establish a 

foundation for the field work. Because we have never had a comprehensive assessment of EFR facilities and other assets, we asked all research stations to assemble 

data on the facilities and capital equipment for each of their EFRs. The results of 

this survey are compiled in table 5.

Compiling such information is difficult. The success of such a call for data 

depends on an attentive and consistent response from dozens of different individuals or teams of scientists. Nonetheless, based on results through fiscal year 2011, 
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935 Table 5—Survey of investments and assets on experimental forests and ranges (EFRs), fiscal year 2011 FRRE research appropriated funds Rent, Materials communi- Other and cations, personnel FRRE Experimental forest or range Salaries Equipment supplies Travel Fleet G & A utilities Contracts Training salary Other total Dollars International Institute of Tropical Forestry (IITF): Luquillo 957,433 12,905 210,508 3,796 29,280 166,780 — — — — — 1,380,702 Estate Thomas 9,000 None 3,766 3,000 — — — — — — — 15,766 IITF totals 966,433 12,905 214,274 6,796 29,280 166,780 — — — — — 1,396,468 Northern Research Station (NRS): Argonne EF 52,200 1,500 5,400 790 4,800 24,000 — — — — — 88,690 Bartlett EF 180,600 — 11,352 3,500 4,600 — 14,713 — — — — 214,765 Big Falls EF 600 — — 125 — — — — — — — 725 Coulee EF 675 — — 250 — — — — — — — 925

Cutfoot EF 87,000 2,500 9,000 1,316 8,000 40,000 — — — — — 147,816Dukes EF 20,400 500 1,800 263 1,600 8,000 — — — — — 32,563Fernow EF 755,000 7,500 61,500 18,700 51,100 104,600 — — — — — 998,400Harshaw EF 226,052 500 440,719 455,872 — — — — — 1,123,143Hubbard Brook EF 500,900 31,527 34,624 12,667 13,300 10,489 — — — 6,576 610,083Kane EF 174,362 1,000 4,799 — 8,111 12,000 — — — — — 200,272Kaskaskia EF — — — — — — — — — — — —Kawishiwi EF 1,975 — — — — — — — — — — 1,975Lower Peninsula EF 570 — — — — — — — — — — 570Marcell EF 423,000 10,000 90,000 500 25,000 70,000 — — — — — 618,500Massabesic EF 105,410 — 4,206 1,000 6,700 15,000 1,629 — — — — 133,945Paoli EF — — — — — — — — — — — —Penobscot EF 177,000 — 7,525 600 4,000 47,500 3,710 — — — 2,831 243,166Pike Bay EF 17,400 500 1,800 263 1,600 8,000 — — — — — 29,563Silas Little EF 287,031 25,247 15,000 8,000 6,800 128,000 — — — — — 470,078Sinkin EF (long-term soil 140,214 — — 315 — — — — — — — 140,529 productivity study)Sinkin EF 217,484 15,000 1,052 727 6,000 11,791 — — — — — 252,054Udell EF 1,260 — — — — — — — — — — 1,260Vinton Furnace State EF 257,594 4,127 13,825 393 16,596 10,000 — — — — — 302,535

 NRS totals 3,626,727 99,901 702,602 49,409 158,207 934,763 30,541 — — — 9,407 5,611,557
19

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Table 5—Survey of investments and assets on experimental forests and ranges (EFRs), fiscal year 2011 (continued)

FRRE research appropriated funds 

Rent,

Materials communi- Other

and cations, personnel FRRE

Experimental forest or range Salaries Equipment supplies Travel Fleet G & A utilities Contracts Training salary Other total

Dollars

Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW):

Bonanza/Caribou O&M 43 — 919 — — — — — — — — 962Bonanza/Caribou Research 244,500 — — — — — — — — — 244,500Cascade Head O&M 37,500 — 16,000 — — — — — — — — 53,500Cascade Head Research 12,500 — — — — — — — — — 12,500Entiat O&M 35,631 6,892 7,489 967 1,922 6,400 — — — — — 59,300Entiat Research 62,500 — — — — — — — — — — 62,500Héen Latinee O&M 12,500 — — — — — — — — — — 12,500Héen Latinee Research 31,250 — — — — — — — — — — 31,250H.J. Andrews O&M 55,832 — — — — 130,000 — — — — — 185,832H.J. Andrews Research 412,500 — — — — — — — — — — 412,500Maybeso O&M 775 825 — — — — — — — — — 1,600Maybeso Research 31,250 — — — — — — — — — — 31,250Olympic — — — — — — — — — — — —Pringle Falls O&M — — — — — — — — — — — —Pringle Falls Research 150,160 10,600 150,160 21,545 14,840 43,491 — — — — — 390,796South Umpqua O&M — — — — 275 — — — — — — 275South Umpqua Research — — — — — — — — — — — —Starkey O&M 257,626 149,950 146,889 20,000 41,704 10,000 — — — — — 626,169Starkey Research 456,459 — — — — — — — — — — 456,459Wind River O&M 4,775 — 11 1,143 56 — — — — — — 5,985Wind River Research 18,750 — — — — 15,000 — — — — — 33,750Corporate (PNW-wide) 30,000 — — — — — — — — — — 30,000

 PNW totals 1,854,551 168,267 321,468 43,655 58,797 204,891 — — — — — 2,651,628Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW):

Blacks Mountain EF — — — — — — — — — — — —Caspar Creek EW — — — — — — — — — — — —Challenge EF 10,000 — — — 500 — — — — — — 10,500Hawaii Tropical EF 60,000 — — — — — — — — — — 60,000North Mountain EF — — — — — — — — — — — —Onion Creek EF — — — — — — — — — — — —Redwood EF — — — — — — — — — — — —Sagehen EF 2,000 — — 1,000 — — — — — — — 3,000San Dimas EF — — 10,587 — — — 10,587 — — — — 21,174San Joaquin ER 59,159 — 11,271 — — — 11,271 — — — — 81,701Stanislaus-Tuolumne EF 102,000 — — 1,000 3,500 80,000 — — — — — 186,500Swain Mountain EF — — — — — — — — — — — —Teakettle EF 33,886 — 80 — 5,000 — 80 — — — — 39,046

 PSW totals 267,045 — 21,938 2,000 9,000 80,000 21,938 — — — — 401,921
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935 Table 5—Survey of investments and assets on experimental forests and ranges (EFRs), fiscal year 2011 (continued) FRRE research appropriated funds Rent, Materials communi- Other and cations, personnel FRRE Experimental forest or range Salaries Equipment supplies Travel Fleet G & A utilities Contracts Training salary Other total Dollars Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS): Black Hills EF — — — 3,363 — — — — — — — 3,363 Boise Basin EF — — — 3,975 — — — — — — — 3,975 Coram EF 41,982 — 629 600 1,818 — 3,540 — — — — 48,569 Deception Creek EF — — — 1,988 — — — — — — — 1,988 Desert ER 46,237 — 500 1,062 — — — — — — — 47,799 Fort Valley EF 35,746 — 1,573 — — — 5,500 — — — 2,500 45,319 Fraser EFa 163,813 9,598 44,700 — 19,586 — 19,000 — — — 3,500 260,197 GLEES 63,267 — 2,799 3,000 25,200 — 7,221 14,521 1,000 — — 117,008 Great Basin ER 26,235 — 844 909 — — — — — — — 27,988

Long Valley EF — — — — — — — — — 20,000 — 20,000Manitou EFa — — 79,316 — — — — — — — — 79,316Priest River EF 100,228 — 18,315 3,207 4,200 — 4,200 — — — 19,743 149,893)Sierra Ancha EF 15,514 21,205 — 4,397 — 5,000 1,625 — 1,000 36,436 4,568 89,745Tenderfoot Creek EF — — 565 7,500 4,764 — — 10,285 1,500 — 47,916 72,530

 RMRS totals 493,022 30,803 149,241 30,001 55,568 5,000 41,086 24,806 3,500 56,436 78,227 967,690Southern Research Station (SRS):

Alum Creek EF 50,643 3,000 500 — 2,204 15,000 — — — — — 71,346Bent Creek EF 68,850 13,400 250 720 2,850 — — — 86,070Blue Valley EF 1,000 — — 75 — — — — 1,075Calhoun EF — — — — — — — — — — — —Chipola EF — — — — — — — — — — —Coweeta EF 1,000,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 30,000 — 50,000 — — — 15,000 1,195,000Crossett EF 233,460 12,908 21,770 5,403 16,232 — 5,500 — — — 3,500 298,773Delta EF 3,000 500 — — — 3,500Escambia EF 100,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 2,500 15,000 10,000 — — — 2,000 144,500Harrison EF 87,960 48,000 10,000 — 9,000 — 13,030 — — — 2,000 169,990Koen EF 12,000 200 — 500 400 — 3,000 — — — — 16,100Hitchiti EF 59,700 — 689 — 1,500 — 2,721 — — — — 64,611Olustee EF — — — — — — — — — — — —Palustris EF 110,000 2,000 2,000 — — — 5,000 — — — 2,000 121,000Santee EF 750,000 20,000 20,000 50,000 20,000 — 20,000 — — — 15,000 895,000Scull Shoals EF — — — — — — — — — — — —Stephen F. Austin EF 48,324 9,927 4,342 — 3,227 — 2,000 — — — 2,400 70,220Sylamore EF 1,000 — — 200 — — — — — 1,200Tallahatchie EF 500 — — — — — — — — — — 500

 SRS totals 2,526,437 126,035 102,701 111,153 86,058 30,000 114,601 — — — 41,900 3,138,885All stations totals 9,734,215 437,911 1,512,224 243,014 396,909 1,421,434 208,166 24,806 3,500 56,436 129,534 14,168,149
21

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Table 5—Survey of investments and assets on experimental forests and ranges (EFRs), fiscal year 2011 (continued)

Construction CM (incl. CMFC, All

FRF2 fire	 FMCP09, CRRD, CRFR +)	 appropriated

funding Outside

Experimental forest or range FRF2 FRF2 G&A FRF2 total O&M New Total total funding 

Dollars

International Institute of Tropical Forestry (IITF):

Luquillo — — — 175,000 — 175,000 1,555,702 1,600,000Estate Thomas — — — — — — 15,766 —

 IITF totals — — — 175,000 — 175,000 1,571,468Northern Research Station (NRS):

Argonne EF — — — — — — 88,690 —Bartlett EF — — — 41,468 — 41,468 256,233 —BigFalls EF — — — — — — 725 —Coulee EF — — — — — — 925 —Cutfoot EF 56,000 — 56,000 — 353,559 353,559 557,375 —Dukes EF — — — — 371,610 371,610 404,173 35,100Fernow EF 43,000 — 43,000 12,000 — 12,000 1,053,400 88,600Harshaw EF — — — 1,000 — 1,000 1,124,143 190,614Hubbard Brook EF — — — 11,798 — 610,083 —Kane EF — — — 650 — 650 200,922 —Kaskaskia EF — — — — — — — —Kawishiwi EF — — — — — — 1,975 —Lower Peninsula EF — — — 1,000 371,610 372,610 373,180 100,000Marcell EF — — — 9,200 353,559 362,759 981,259 —Massabesic EF — — — — 683,345 683,345 817,290 —Paoli EF — — — — — — — 28,212Penobscot EF — — — 15,394 — 15,394 258,560Pike Bay EF — — — — 353,559 353,559 383,122 92,500Silas Little EF — 85,000 85,000 — — — 555,078 —Sinkin EF (long-term soil productivity study) — — — — — — 140,529 14,000Sinkin EF — — — — — — 252,054 14,000Udell EF — — — — 371,610 371,610 372,870 —Vinton Furnace State EF — — — — — — 302,535 —

 NRS totals 99,000 85,000 184,000 92,510 2,858,852 2,951,362 8,746,918 563,026
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935 Table 5—Survey of investments and assets on experimental forests and ranges (EFRs), fiscal year 2011 (continued) Construction CM (incl. CMFC, All FRF2 fire	 FMCP09, CRRD, CRFR +)	 appropriated funding Outside Experimental forest or range FRF2 FRF2 G&A FRF2 total O&M New Total total funding Dollars Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW): Bonanza/Caribou O&M — — — — — — 962 — Bonanza/Caribou Research — — — — — — 244,500 — Cascade Head O&M — — — — — — 53,500 — Cascade Head Research — — — — — — 12,500 — Entiat O&M — — — — — — 59,300 — Entiat Research — — — — — — 62,500 — Héen Latinee O&M — — — — — — 12,500 — Héen Latinee Research — — — — — — 31,250 — H.J. Andrews O&M — — — 45,291 66,435 111,726 297,558 — H.J. Andrews Research — — — — — — 412,500 —

Maybeso O&M — — — — — — 1,600 —Maybeso Research — — — — — — 31,250 —Olympic — — — — — — — —Pringle Falls O&M — — — — 123,865 123,865 123,865 —Pringle Falls Research — — — — — — 390,796 —South Umpqua O&M — — — — 555,000 555,000 555,275 —South Umpqua Research — — — — — — — —Starkey O&M — — — 32,300 28,357 60,657 686,826 —Starkey Research — — — — — — 456,459 —Wind River O&M — — — — — — 5,985 —Wind River Research — — — — — — 33,750 —Corporate (PNW-wide) — — — — — — 30,000 — PNW totals — — — 77,591 773,657 851,248 3,502,876 —

Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW):

Blacks Mountain EF — — — — — — — —Caspar Creek EW — — — — — — — —Challenge EF — — — — — — 10,500 74,000Hawaii Tropical EF — — — — — — 60,000 —North Mountain EF — — — — — — — —Onion Creek EF — — — — — — — —Redwood EF — — — — — — — —Sagehen EF — — — — — — 3,000 —San Dimas EF — — — — — — 21,174 —San Joaquin ER — — — 13,290 — 13,290 94,991 —Stanislaus-Tuolumne EF — — — — — — 186,500 —Swain Mountain EF — — — — — — — —Teakettle EF — — — — — — 39,046 — PSW totals — — — 13,290 — 13,290 415,211 74,000
23

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Table 5—Survey of investments and assets on experimental forests and ranges (EFRs), fiscal year 2011 (continued)

Construction CM (incl. CMFC, All

FRF2 fire	 FMCP09, CRRD, CRFR +)	 appropriated

funding Outside

Experimental forest or range FRF2 FRF2 G&A FRF2 total O&M New Total total funding 

Dollars

Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS):

Black Hills EF — — — — — — 3,363 —Boise Basin EF — — — — — — 3,975 —Coram EF — — — — — — 48,569 —Deception Creek EF — — — — — — 1,988 —Desert ER — — — — — — 47,799 480Fort Valley EF — — — — — — 45,319 —Fraser EFa — — — — — — 260,197 —GLEESa — — — — — — 117,008 —Great Basin ER — — — — — — 27,988 —Long Valley EF — — — — — — 20,000 50,000Manitou EFa — — — — — — 79,316 —Priest River EF — — — — — — 149,893 —Sierra Ancha EF — — — — — — 89,745 —Tenderfoot Creek EF — — — — 495,000 495,000 567,530 — RMRS totals — — — — 495,000 495,000 1,462,690 50,480

Southern Research Station (SRS):

Alum Creek EF — — — — — — 71,346Bent Creek EF — — — — — — 86,070Blue Valley EF — — — — — — 1,075Calhoun EF — — — — — — — 50,000Chipola EF — — — — — — — 50,000Coweeta EF — — — — — — 1,195,000 250,000Crossett EF — — — — — — 298,773 50,000Delta EF — — — — — — 3,500 —Escambia EF — — — — — — 144,500 —Harrison EF — — 15,000 15,000 — 15,000 199,990 80,000Koen EF — — — — — — 16,100 —Hitchiti EF — — 1,022 1,022 — 1,022 66,655 —Olustee EF — — — — — — — —Palustris EF — — — — — — 121,000 —Santee EF — — — — — — 895,000 —Scull Shoals EF — — — — — — — 24,000Stephen F. Austin EF — — — — — — 70,220 —Sylamore EF — — — — — — 1,200 —Tallahatchie EF — — — — — — 500 —

 SRS totals — — 16,022 16,022 — 16,022 3,170,929 504,000All stations totals 99,000 85,000 200,022 374,413 4,127,509 4,501,922 18,870,092 1,191,506a There are other categories that are not included such as rent, communications, utilities, training, contracts, and other personnel costs. Thus the total given for this unit is less than the true funding.G & A = grants and agreements; O & M = operations and maintenance; EF = experimental forest; EW = experimental watershed; ER = experimental range.
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

we can see that the 80 EFRs are clearly not all functioning at the same capacity, 

something we certainly knew already. Of the 80 EFRs, 32 have no facilities of 

any note. Research done at these EFRs relies on access and support work (e.g., 

lab preparations, nursery activities, sleeping quarters, etc.) from offsite locations. 

Among the remaining 48 EFRs, there are roughly 90 buildings (offices, cabins, 

dormitories, and other space for human activities) for which Forest Service R&D 

has responsibility. Of these 48, most (roughly 40), have fairly substantial facilities (office buildings, cabins, bunkhouses, storage buildings, laboratories, workshops) onsite or nearby (i.e., accessible and of use to scientists working on the 

EFR). Sleeping facilities include roughly 325 beds, but most EFRs with sleeping 

facilities have between 2 and 10 beds. Four EFRs, H.J. Andrews (88), Luquillo 

(40), Priest River (26), and Manitou (23), account for over half of the total beds 

available. Some EFRs have substantial facilities for housing people, but they are 

operated by partner institutions (e.g., Hubbard Brook [Hubbard Brook Research 

Foundation], Sagehen [University of California at Berkeley], and Coweeta 

[University of Georgia]) and thus are not included in this assessment. Table 5 

contains a compilation of data that roughly accounts for the facilities assets we 

have at our experimental forests. 

Many of our facilities are quite old; inevitably, much of this inventory is in 

need of maintenance work. Some of these buildings, built in the 1930s and 1940s, 

have historical significance. There will be considerable challenges in the immediate future managing our portfolio of largely older infrastructure. Historical 

structures are more expensive and complicated to restore. Removal is a complicated process that takes time and money. Most of those that are not historical are 

also in need of typically expensive repairs. This issue will require careful thought 

to determine prudent solutions.

Information Assets on EFRs

Information assets are a key legacy of any field-oriented research organization, 

whether biological field station, Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) site, or 

EFR. The most familiar set of assets is the research data collected on the site. The 

significance of EFR research data was confirmed by a 2009 Customer Satisfaction Study conducted by the Claes Fornell International Group (CFI 2009) to 

assess satisfaction with FS R&D. Respondents were from both private and public 

sectors, with half (49 percent) self-identified as technical or professional and 

15 percent as researchers. The study found that respondents thought long-term 

research and its attending data sets (especially those from experimental forests) 

may be among the most valuable resources that the Forest Service has. Despite 

Respondents to a 

survey thought that 

long-term research and 

its attending data sets 

(especially those from 

experimental forests) 

may be among the 

Forest Service’s most 

valuable resources.
25

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

this perceived importance, accessing these data can be very difficult even for 

scientists in FS R&D—as the problems associated with developing the air temperature series described in chapter 2 demonstrate.

Research data are increasingly recognized as valuable research products in 

their own right. For over a decade, EFRs participating in the National Science 

Foundation (NSF) LTER program have provided research data online in compliance 

with LTER network-wide data access policy. Recent developments illustrating this 

growing recognition include:

• NSF grant proposals must have a data management plan describing how 

data will be managed and shared after conclusion of the grant (2010)

• Joint Fire Sciences Program set a data management plan requirement 

similar to NSF, and created a program to archive data from previous JFSP 

projects (2011)

• USDA Scientific Data Management Committee and Working Group was 

created; the working group drafted a policy addressing the need to preserve 

and share USDA scientific data (2011).

Two other classes of EFR information assets are administrative data, including research project histories, and the EFR Web presence. The Web presence 

includes an internal component for communication among EFRs and an external 

component for communication with the global scientific community and the 

public. Each of these asset classes faces significant management challenges that 

the EFR community will need to address to maximize the success and impact of 

its research activities.

Current Costs of Operation

The collection of 80 EFRs presents a sizeable combined opportunity and challenge. 

These sites and their facilities have a significant capacity to enable the field results 

that are central to our mission. Our most successful EFRs have people dedicated 

to the activities of the site and well-developed facilities. The challenge comes from 

providing the staff to energize the activities on site and developing and maintaining 

the facilities, a considerable and continuous task. 

The scientific staff necessary to support and energize an EFR varies from site 

to site. Not every site merits the same level of commitment, but we know from 

100 years of experience that it is largely the initiative and drive of people involved 

in any given EFR that make an EFR successful. In this section, however, the focus 

is on the physical infrastructure that is so integrally important to the science that 

is achieved. 
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

The physical infrastructure issues that need conscientious attention include:

• Maintenance of buildings

• Maintenance and updating of field instruments and other equipment

• Provision of utilities

• Road maintenance and access

• Fire safety

• Site security

• Safety of employees who use these facilities

• Communications (Internet access, telephone).

Based on the rather incomplete and inconsistent response to the national data call 

on recent annual investments in EFRs, we do not yet have a clear picture. Table 5 does 

convey, however, some insight into the level of investment in individual EFRs and 

EFRs as a group by research stations. Not surprisingly, estimates obtained from each 

research station show that Forest Service-wide expenditures on EFRs are declining.

Fiscal year

Forest and rangeland research 

expenditures

Construction 

expenditures 

2010 $ 14,168,149 $ 4,501,922

2011 $ 12,074,825 $ 6,937,860

2012 $ 10,610,928 $ 913,539

Investments in construction and maintenance are also likely to decline, 

although they are more subject to the vagaries of need and opportunity. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act recently provided an influx of funds in certain 

areas. In general, we expect this kind of funding to decline as well. Most of the 

Forest and Rangeland Research (FRRE) expenditures are in salaries, largely those 

of scientists who work at EFRs. Also included are support staff, site-management 

work, most equipment and supply purchases, and other things necessary to conduct 

research on the site. Although this measure of investment may be rough, it does 

suggest that currently all work on EFRs constitutes something less than 5 percent 

of the total R&D program. We did not previously have any quantifiable sense of this 

level of investment. Whether it is more or less than expected is worth pondering.

Investments parsed out by research stations also suggest some important 

insights. The Northern Research Station has the most EFRs (22 of 80—about 27 

percent of the total) and invests about $5.6 million (FY 2010 figures), which is about 

39 percent of the total in FRRE investments. The insight gained is that research stations have different business requirements and models for operating their respective 

stations and the EFRs within their area. There are some solid, explainable reasons 

for this (e.g., some research stations have several high-profile EFRs within their 

area) and it is also likely because of different priorities at each station.
27

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Management Structure Supporting EFRs

The EFRs are managed by the respective research stations, each managing in its 

own way. This is a legacy of 100 years of managing EFRs as independent units. 

There is also currently no independent budget line allocated to each individual 

EFR. Personnel, equipment, facilities, operation, and maintenance costs are 

accounted for as part of specific research projects or administrative costs at the 

research station level. We do have a job code assigned for EFR activities; however, 

the job codes are not mandatory to be used by scientists and administrative personnel who are conducting research or administrative tasks for the EFRs.

The Role of External Funding

Monies for operating the EFRs are largely from appropriated funds, but there 

are other sources that play an important role in the various aspects of EFRs. This 

includes both support for the scientific work (salaries, equipment, supplies, travel) 

and maintenance of the considerable physical infrastructure at the EFRs. The latter (e.g., facility repairs, utilities, etc.) is generally included in station or research 

program budgets, though the amount varies annually and across EFRs. Additional 

support for infrastructure maintenance on an EFR often comes from the host 

institution (typically a national forest). Funding for long-term studies on EFRs 

is allocated by the stations within program or work unit budgets. Forest Service 

scientists at EFRs are able to conduct long-term research and monitoring as long 

as the parent research stations are able to sustain this committed base funding. 

To the extent that the Forest Service supports EFR infrastructure, scientist and 

professional support salaries, and costs of data collection and publication, Forest 

Service scientists are able to engage in longer term research and monitoring projects than their university colleagues. This allows them to address management 

issues arising from natural or anthropogenic disturbances that may take many 

years, or longer, to appear. 

For many decades, Forest Service EFRs were funded almost exclusively with 

appropriated or base funds. Over the past 10 to 20 years, however, long-term 

research on EFRs has become increasing reliant on external funding. This is 

due to a number of factors, including shrinking operating budgets and the need 

to invest in research on emerging issues, which inevitably affects our ability to 

maintain the long-term studies that serve as the foundation of EFR work. This 

trend toward increasing reliance on external funding is underscored by research 

funded by the NSF through the LTER network. Of the 26 LTER sites, six are Forest Service EFRs (including Cooperating EFRs) that benefit directly and indirectly 

from NSF funding for the network. The annual funding support provided to these 

The EFRs are managed 

by the respective 

research stations, 

each managing in its 

own way. This is a 

legacy of 100 years 

of managing EFRs as 

independent units. 

Forest Service 

scientists can 

engage in longer 

term research and 

monitoring projects 

than their university 

colleagues, allowing 

them to address 

management issues 

arising from natural 

or anthropogenic 

disturbances that 

may take decades, or 

longer, to appear.
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

six EFRs is well over $10 million, which leverages additional millions of dollars of research and has resulted in many notable research results and significant 

contributions to the EFR network. Like the LTER program, there is also a new 

NSF initiative that involves several EFRs, the National Ecological Observatory 

Network (NEON). Although this program is just getting underway, it will bring 

some significant new work and attending investments to the seven EFRs that are 

involved in this program.

In addition to significantly reduced operating budgets, R&D has experienced 

a cultural shift toward greater emphasis on and reward for competitively awarded, 

external funds. There is a relatively recent organizational expectation that scientists 

will, to some degree, be self-funded, both because base funds are limited and 

because competitively awarded grants confirm the scientific merit of new work. In 

addition, the Research Grade Evaluation Guide acknowledges performance for scientists who have initiated original studies more than for those who are continuing 

studies initiated by their predecessors. In light of these factors, it is likely that the 

desire for and reliance on external funds for EFR work will increase in the future. 

This trend, however, will not enable the maintenance or additions needed for the 

infrastructure of our facilities. The support for facilities will likely have to continue 

coming from appropriated dollars. 

The proportion of EFR budgets consisting of external funds is small overall (roughly less that 10 percent of the total EFR budget in FY 2011). Yet this 

amount varies across stations, ranging from 55 percent in IITF to 7 percent 

in RMRS and NRS. Although the majority of EFRs remains wholly Forest 

Service-funded, some receive a substantial portion of their funding (as much 

as 70 percent, but more commonly about 15 percent in FY 2011) from external 

sources. The use of external money is appropriate for LTER research and for 

newly initiated or short-term projects, but reliance on these sources of funding to 

cover expenses related to maintenance of long-term studies threatens the integrity of EFR research.

The value accumulated through past investments, and the importance of the 

EFRs to the Forest Service R&D portfolio, suggests that Forest Service R&D 

leadership will have important investment tradeoffs to consider. The long-term 

viability of EFRs will be affected by how we plan to balance the use and suitability of external and competitively awarded funds versus base funds. An evaluation of whether external money is necessary and desirable to support core EFRs 

research is warranted. There are significant risks if we cannot rely on the base 

research funding support to maintain the necessary infrastructure and long-term 

baseline monitoring.
29

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Products and Services from EFRs

The evolution of research purposes on experimental forests and ranges—

The original intent for EFRs was relatively uniform and simple. Sixty-four of the 

current 80 EFRs were established by 1960 and most were created for a basic, common set of information needs. Silvicultural knowledge was needed in all the regions 

of the country in the first half of the 20th century to aid forest managers in rehabilitating previously cutover stands and increasing timber production. Several of these 

original EFRs were also designed to address additional ecological questions tailored 

to local conditions and management challenges. The following summary highlights 

the trends in establishing EFRs by geographic region.

Seventeen current EFRs were established in the north-central and northeast 

areas of the country by 1960 in a variety of forest cover types. Sixteen had very 

common roots. Fundamental to their origin were silviculture, methods of cutting, 

stocking levels, regeneration, growth, and yield. However, the last EFRs established in this region prior to 1960 signified a new trend in EFR purpose: watershed 

research. The Hubbard Brook EF was established in 1955 with a primary purpose of 

studying the hydrology of forest systems. A few of the other sites also had the study 

of fire and effects on forest systems as part of their charge.

The EFRs in the southeastern portion of the country had similar origins. Of the 

18 current EFRs established prior to 1960, the first 14 again had the same purposes 

of silviculture, cutting cycles, growth and yield, thinning, and reforestation. One 

exception was the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory. Established in 1934, it had a 

unique purpose for its time—collecting baseline measurements on climate, streamflow, and forest growth. Some also had ancillary purposes such as game habitat 

management and fire management in the fire-prone pine regions of the southeast 

United States. The last four established before 1960 once again marked a trend 

toward other purposes. The Tallahatchie, Chipola, Alum Creek, and Scull Shoals 

EFs were established to address such purposes as effects of flooding, flood prevention, restoration, watershed processes, and wildlife habitat. 

Eleven EFRs in the Rocky Mountain/Intermountain region had been established 

by 1960. Once again silviculture, in ponderosa pine and other interior conifer types, 

was the driving purpose in seven of these 11 sites. However, with the establishment 

of experimental ranges (Great Basin, Sierra Ancha, and Desert), different purposes 

emerged. Range research that examined grazing, plant succession, revegetation, and 

nutrient cycling served important information needs for land managers of this region. 

Effects of watershed management and flash flooding were also important. At the Fraser EF in Colorado, investigations of snow accumulation, water yield, and watershed 

management issues dating from as early as 1937 anticipated important issues of today. 
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Reasons for establishing the 13 EFRs of the Pacific region prior to 1960 were 

consistent with those of the rest of the EFRs, although they included several additional research themes reflective of conditions in western coniferous forests—the 

effects of bark beetle infestations, response to periodic fire, and watershed health. 

Management of the various conifer types of the West, including mixed conifer, 

redwood, true fir, spruce-hemlock, and others, was generally focused on maintaining productivity to serve the forest products industry. The western states also have 

extensive range and shrublands, and three of the 13 EFRs (San Joaquin Experimental Range, Starkey EFR, and San Dimas EF) emphasize research on grazing, 

shrubland ecology, restoration after fire, and wildlife habitat improvement.

The original purposes of the EFRs generally were to serve the information needs 

of commodity-production forestry for the first several decades of the 20th century. 

However, as the science of land management and corresponding public expectations 

began to change mid-century, there was a significant progression of purposes for the 

EFRs toward a more ecological, multi-objective perspective during the latter part of 

the century. The EFRs established since 1960 especially reflect this shift in emphasis. 

The 16 EFRs established since 1960 generally have a broader ecosystem management 

orientation with emphasis on themes such as soils and groundwater (Marcell EF), 

effects of forest management on streamflow and sedimentation (Caspar Creek EF), 

atmospheric deposition and climate variability in alpine ecosystems (Glacier Lake 

Ecosystem Experiment Site), interactions of climate and hydrology over a complete 

watershed (Héen Latinee and Sagehen EFs), and restoration of tropical ecosystems 

(Hawaii Tropical EF). This trend matches well with the movement toward broad 

provision of ecosystem services by the Forest Service and other land managers.

Managers are also being challenged to address adaptation to and mitigation of 

environmental changes on regional to global scales. The demand for new science is 

driven partly by shifts in climate. Managed forests will increasingly be valued as 

carbon sinks in response to both ecological needs and market demands. Whether or 

not national forests participate in carbon markets directly, they are sure to have a 

key role in regional management of carbon- and climate-related ecosystem services. 

For example, EFRs can be used to conduct training, provide demonstration sites for 

outreach, reach international networks and partners for workshops and field tours 

in cooperation with Forest Service international programs, and so forth. One could 

argue, the EFR network is significantly underutilized for these kinds of activities.

Among the most prestigious and productive EFRs the Forest Service possesses are 

a small handful of older ones that had an early vision for addressing a broad array of 

ecosystems services. The Coweeta Hydrological Lab (1934), the Fraser EF (1937), the 

H.J. Andrews EF (1948), the Hubbard Brook EF (1955), and Luquillo EF (1956) all share 

The original purpose 

of the EFRs was to 

serve the information 

needs of commodityproduction forestry 

early in the 20th

century. However, as 

the science of land 

management and 

public expectations 

began to change 

mid-century, the 

purpose of EFRs 

progressed toward a 

more ecological, multiobjective perspective.
31

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

broad, multidisciplinary research and monitoring purposes. These sites have important 

affiliations with the scientific community through the LTER program, NEON, and other 

significant collaborative efforts. More recent additions to the EFR network have added 

to this standing within the scientific community with Bonanza Creek EF and Baltimore 

Ecosystem Study (a cooperating experimental forest), both part of the LTER network. 

Affiliation with the broader scientific community provides breadth that raises the 

capabilities and stature of those EFRs and the entire R&D program.

Distinction and advantages of experimental forests and ranges—

“Field stations are places where we can read the book of life in the language 

in which it was written.” 

—James Kirchner, Director of the Sagehen Creek Field Station, 

University of California–Berkeley

There are many field research sites around the Nation, sponsored and managed 

by a variety of research and educational institutions. The Organization of Biological 

Field Stations is one group that represents many of the field sites where ecological 

research is conducted (with 226 members currently), typically operated by universities. The mission of these field sites is to enable scientists to understand natural 

processes at every scale, from the molecular to the global, and from milliseconds 

to eons, and to help member stations increase their effectiveness in supporting 

critical research, education, and outreach programs. State and federal government 

agencies also have such facilities. Many states have field sites dedicated to conservation where research and monitoring activities are enabled. National parks, Fish 

and Wildlife Service refuges, and BLM lands, the primary federal lands managed 

for conservation purposes, also have some portion of their holdings dedicated to 

providing opportunities for research and monitoring. However, there are few sites 

in the United States that offer the conditions directly suited to scientific pursuit that 

can be found on EFRs.

Some key advantages of EFRs that are largely unavailable at other research field 

sites provide scientists with the ability to conduct research at durational and spatial 

scales unmatched by most field research sites:

• These are permanent facilities dedicated to research activities.

• Historical environmental records and research data span up to 100 years 

and provide a wealth of information from which new studies can draw. 

• Long-term research is feasible and enabled. 

• Manipulative field studies, such as testing management practices, are 

encouraged. This is one of the fundamental reasons for establishing these 

sites and sets them apart from almost any other field site.
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

• Some work is designed and executed over fairly large geographic areas, 

more relevant to landscape management problems.

• New studies, complementing and conterminous with existing studies, are 

feasible and enabled.

• Both basic and applied research activities are encouraged and enabled.

• Land and resource managers are typically involved in articulating the 

research and monitoring questions as well as enabling the execution of the 

work through a variety of logistical support activities.

• Many sites provide demonstration plots or stands to illustrate the results of 

research findings for educational purposes.

• Logistical support (housing, meeting rooms, laboratories, data, maps, etc.) 

is available at many EFRs.

• Sites support “placed-based research” in which multiple disciplines and 

managers can be involved with research. 

Long-term data sets are one of the most significant distinctions. Recent research 

findings affirm the value and significance of a long-term view of ecological systems 

through spanning the inherent spatial and temporal variability of the observed elements. There are very few comparable opportunities to capture this long term variability in forest and range systems. The value of these data sets is significant. Some 

data collection efforts stretch back 80 or 90 years; some are intended to continue for 

as many as 200 years. Forest Service R&D is almost the only entity capable of such 

a long research horizon.

The ability to conduct scientific research in-house, apply research findings on 

NFS lands, and transfer them to others for use on all of the Nation’s forest land sets 

the Forest Service apart as a natural resource agency. No other agency or organization has such a significant land management responsibility and extensive land 

base for field research combined with a strong and reputable research capability to 

provide guidance to land management. This level of capability to address natural 

resource challenges is unmatched worldwide. 

Scientific discoveries—

One hundred years of field research and monitoring has developed a wide array 

of scientific results well suited to guiding land management decisions. Key 

discoveries with wide-ranging impact on environmental policy and natural 

resource management have emerged in a variety of research themes that have 

direct management implications. For over a century, EFRs have made significant 

contributions to the practical environmental processes and to the formulation of 

management approaches and policies that affect the use of our forests and the 

Long-term data sets 

are one of the most 

significant distinctions 

of EFRs. Recent 

research findings 

affirm the value and 

significance of a longterm view of ecological 

systems through 

spanning the inherent 

spatial and temporal 

variability of the 

observed elements.

The ability to conduct 

scientific research inhouse, apply research 

findings on national 

forests, and transfer 

them to others for use 

on all of the Nation’s 

forest land sets the 

Forest Service apart 

as a natural resource 

agency. No other 

agency or organization 

has such a significant 

land management 

responsibility and 

extensive land base for 

field research.
33

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

many natural resources they contain (Youngblood and Palik 2011). This significant 

body of work has had the ancillary benefit of training a large number of graduate 

students, many of whom represent the future workforce in forest management and 

natural resource conservation. 

A brief summary of key scientific findings includes: 

Silviculture and forest ecology—Many forest management strategies, employed 

on both public and private lands, have been based on knowledge gained from 

experimental forests. For example, loblolly pine management techniques were 

pioneered on the Crossett Experimental Forest in Arkansas. Impacts of diameterlimit cuts were developed on the Penobscot EF in Maine. Long-term research on 

the Pringle Falls EF in Oregon made significant contributions to development of 

management strategies to sustain the valuable ponderosa pine forests of the interior 

Pacific Northwest. Much of what is known about old-growth structure and function came from studies on the H.J. Andrews EF in Oregon and the Wind River EF 

in Washington. In particular, a key shift in management standards for streams in 

the Northwest occurred upon the finding that large woody debris was, in fact, an 

important ecological element of streams and should be retained rather than removed 

as prior management direction required (Sedell and Swanson 1984). 

Current research is conveying knowledge of old growth into management of 

young, second-growth forests. Recent research on the Teakettle EF and the Stanislaus-Tuolumne EF in California is making significant contributions to restructuring Forest Service forest management policy toward variable-density thinning 

strategies throughout the Sierra Nevada. 

Water—Clean water (and an adequate supply) is a critical resource and service 

that comes from our forests. Water is vital to all portions of the United States and 

especially acute in the western states, where cyclical droughts result in increasingly 

short supply of water for domestic and agricultural uses. Forests play a critical role 

in their relationship with watersheds, and many watershed management strategies 

are a result of findings from research on experimental forests. For example, the H.J. 

Andrews Experimental Forest was one of the first to examine the relationship between forest ecology and watershed function.

The Caspar Creek Experimental Watershed in California has yielded key 

information on how logging on steep slopes and riparian areas can affect 

sediment flows in watersheds. Long-term research at the Coweeta Hydrologic 

Laboratory in South Carolina has had a significant impact on our understanding of how forest vegetation affects site water balance, nutrient cycling, and 

water quality. Research on the Maybeso EF in Alaska has improved our underCurrent research is 

conveying knowledge 

of old growth into 

management of young, 

second-growth forests. 

Recent research on 

EFRs in California is 

making significant 

contributions to 

restructuring Forest 

Service forest 

management policy 

toward variabledensity thinning 

strategies throughout 

the Sierra Nevada. 
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Silvicultural Research on the Crossett Experimental Forest

Loblolly–shortleaf pine forests cover 10 million hectares (25 million acres) 

of western Gulf coastal plain. Loblolly pine is a prolific cone producer, a 

reliable seeder, a fast grower, a generous wood producer, and a hardy dominator of practically any site. A stand of loblolly reduced to a bare one-third 

of its former abundance of trees can be fully restored in 15 years with the 

right silviculture. 

Because most of the forestland in the South is held by private nonindustrial owners, sustainable and profitable timber management is important not 

only to landowners but to the Southern economy. The Crossett Experimental 

Forest was formally established in 1934 when the Crossett Lumber Company, 

owner of thousands of hectares of timber in southern Arkansas and northern 

Louisiana, leased 680 ha (1,680 ac) of its cutover timberland to the Forest 

Service for a research station. The company needed scientific support for 

managing the second-growth timber that was springing up on its logged lands. 

By the 1930s, the old-growth forest was almost gone, and most companies 

had either gone out of business or moved to richer pickings on the West Coast. 

In 1937, a Farm Forestry study examining uneven-aged forestry began. Two 

16-hectare (40-acre) research plots, now known as the Good Forty and the 

Poor Forty, had been heavily logged in about 1920 without any thought toward 

regeneration, and had recovered at different rates. By 1937, the Good Forty 

had good stocking of about 5,000 board feet of pine timber to the acre; the 

Poor Forty had less than half that amount. The Farm Forestry research showed 

conclusively that owners of small tracts of loblolly and shortleaf pine could 

manage their land profitably without clearcutting it—even if the forest is damaged from overcutting, ice storms, high winds, or pine beetles. 

Today Crossett has the most complete long-term data on growth and yield 

of naturally regenerated loblolly–shortleaf pine stands in the South. Crossett’s 

work continues to be relevant to managed forests throughout the South—not 

only on private lands, but also on public lands such as national forests, where 

values such as wildlife and aesthetics are often as important as timber.
35

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

standing of how timber harvest practices affect ecosystem water use and 

availability. Acid rain, and its impact on trees, e.g., dry deposition, runoff, and 

forest soils, was discovered at Hubbard Brook EF in New Hampshire (Likens et 

al. 1972). Research from there and from Fernow EF in West Virginia demonstrated the effects of acid rain on forest soils, streams, and vegetation, as well 

as ways to mitigate these effects. 

Watershed Research on the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest

The H.J. Andrews Forest is part of the vast, productive Douglas-fir region of the 

Pacific Northwest, where forests have shaped the region’s economy and way of 

life. The coniferous forests of the western United States have three (at least) distinctive native features: big, old trees; cold, fast streams; and lots of dead wood. 

When the Andrews Forest was dedicated in 1948, the main purpose of its 

research was to quantify the effects of commercial logging on watersheds and 

find ways to mitigate its environmental impacts, especially on streamflow and 

water quality. In the mid-1960s, researchers questioned the assumption that 

old-growth forest was nothing but overripe timber. The work of these scientists began to reveal old forests for what they are: complex ecosystems with 

processes of living and dying going on all the way from soil microorganisms 

to lichens at the tops of the tallest trees. 

Researchers began probing the function of wood jams commonly found 

in old-growth forest streams. Common wisdom, backed by the latest fisheries 

research, said that dead wood choked the stream and blocked passages for fish. 

So loggers were routinely (and expensively) hauling all wood out of streams 

after a logging operation, even pieces that had been there before. Their studies 

showed, however, that dead wood provides calm pools where fish can rest, 

gravel bars for spawning, and cover from predators. And it harbors the insects 

that fish need for food. These findings resulted in a rapid about-face in standard forest practices. Further research on terrestrial old forest began a remarkable experiment in 1985 to look at decomposition processes in dead logs at the 

Andrews representing a broad range of decay rates. 

The research was designed to last 200 years, unheard of at the time. More 

than two decades later, this study has begun to yield important findings about 

the role of dead wood in wildlife habitat, carbon dynamics, and nutrient cycling. 
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Fire—Wildfire can be a terribly destructive force, particularly where human 

habitation coexists with or borders forests and shrublands. However, fire is the 

driving ecological influence that has shaped forests and shrublands in the West for 

millennia. Organisms and the ecological systems in which they have evolved 

depend on periodic fire to regenerate their function and structure. After many 

decades of fire suppression, combined with the extensive wildland-urban interface 

that exists today, land managers face unprecedented challenges. Research on 

Fire and Fuels Management Research on the Blacks 

Mountain Experimental Forest

When scientists installed a research project in 1996 at Blacks Mountain EF, 

they were hoping to better understand the role that stand structure and fire 

play in interior ponderosa pine forests. They also hoped to gain insight into 

the use of fire and thinning to make stands more resilient to fire and other 

disturbances. A fire that swept down from nearby Blacks Mountain in the dry 

autumn of 2002 gave the experiment a rigorous real-world test. 

The fire roared through the crowns of the untreated parts of the forest, 

killing all the vegetation in its path. But when it reached plots that had been 

thinned, it dropped to the ground immediately. In plots where researchers 

had followed the thinning with prescribed burning, the fire was halted even 

more dramatically—in one instance expiring before it reached a firebreak. 

Before European-American settlement, ponderosa pine forests of the interior 

West tended to experience frequent wildfires. Evidence at Blacks Mountain, 

including rings from living and dead trees, suggested a pattern of frequent, 

extensive fires that left a mosaic of burned and unburned patches across a 

wide landscape. 

The fire pattern is significantly different today because fires have been 

systematically excluded from most forested areas for over a century. Until the 

2002 Cone Fire, Blacks Mountain had experienced no fire at all for 70 years. 

Its forests have responded by packing more vegetation into their understory. 

Can human management—thinning, or burning, or both—effectively 

mimic natural fire? The research team at Blacks Mountain has evaluated the 

ongoing effects of treatments in both the areas hit by the Cone Fire and the 

areas spared. Treatments made a significant difference, and treatments that 

include both thinning and prescribed fire seem to have the most dramatic 

effect. More importantly for the future, the thinning and burning treatments 

seem to be jump-starting the growth of pines. 
37

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

experimental forests has made significant contributions to our understanding of 

how fire operates and how management can work with this significant force. For 

example, a 2002 wildfire on the Blacks Mountain EF in California helped researchers understand the real effects of forest thinning. 

Grasslands and ranges—Our network of EFRs includes five experimental ranges. 

The United States has roughly 419 million acres of shrublands (21 percent of its 

total cover) and roughly 290 million acres of grasslands (14 percent of total cover) 

(USEPA 2001). Clearly, this is a significant land resource and merits attention for 

land management considerations. Research on these experimental ranges has also 

led to important discoveries. For example, early trials to rehabilitate ranges on the 

Desert Experimental Range in Utah helped pioneer the discipline of range management throughout the West, and research on the Tenderfoot Creek EF in Montana 

helped increase understanding of the dynamic relationship among fire, water, and 

forest ecology through watershed research that examined changes in water (rain and 

snow) accumulation and runoff response to various levels of forest cover that results 

from fire or forest treatments. 

Grazing studies on San Joaquin Experimental Range in California provided 

important contributions to the development of sustainable grazing systems in California’s oak woodland savannas. Long-term research at Great Basin Experimental 

Range in Utah has developed important findings regarding the impacts of relative 

levels of grazing pressure on ecosystems and individual plants, and rangeland 

restoration techniques including development and evaluation of plant materials and 

of plant establishment techniques.

Soil conservation—Soils have long been recognized as a crucial component of forest and range ecosystems. Soil-based variables offer our most effective and practicable indices of sustainable productivity (Powers 2002). Long-term observational 

and experimental studies of soil processes on the Calhoun EF in South Carolina 

have examined soil change at multiple time scales, from the decadal to millennial. This work documented soil recovery processes following abandonment after 

protracted agriculture for cotton and associated accelerated soil erosion, followed 

by planting to loblolly pine. Research on soils of oak-dominated, unmanaged forest stands in seven experimental forests that range along an historical and current 

acidic deposition gradient from southern Illinois (Kaskaskia EF) to central West 

Virginia (Fernow EF) discovered that differences in oak growth and mortality may 

be related to the differences in soil chemical status and soil nitrogen dynamics. This 

program provides an example of the way a functional network can address management-related questions across an environmental gradient. 

Early trials to 

rehabilitate ranges 

on the Desert 

Experimental Range 

in Utah helped pioneer 

the discipline of 

range management 

throughout the West.
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Scientists at Marcell EF in Minnesota were the first to demonstrate that soil 

compaction negatively affects future aspen productivity. Long-term studies on the 

San Dimas EF helped to address what people can and cannot do to prevent landslides and floods in the extensive chaparral stands of heavily populated southern 

California. The North American Long-Term Soil Productivity cooperative research 

Rangeland Research on the Desert Experimental Range

The Desert Experimental Range (DER) in Utah is located 260 km (160 mi) 

southwest of Provo, Utah. Despite its low public profile, the DER is a significant spot on the map for range ecologists, being a place where past ecological 

research is paying off in future-focused science. Data from long-established 

studies are helping scientists come to grips with two of today’s pressing challenges: invasive weeds and climate change. 

Composed of 22 500 ha (about 55,600 ac) of mostly treeless salt-desert 

shrubland, the DER is the largest of all the Forest Service’s experimental forests 

and ranges. The sparse vegetation, minimal precipitation, and continental 

temperatures make the DER typical of an ecosystem that is widespread across 

the more arid parts of the Interior West. In 1933, the DER was set aside by 

presidential order as a place to investigate the economic and ecological impacts 

of grazing. Within two years, the first researchers had established 20 study 

paddocks of 100 to 130 hectares (240–320 acres) each, of which 16 had two, 

4,000-m2 (1-acre) fenced “exclosures,” or control areas where livestock were not 

allowed to graze. Grazing treatments in these paddocks have been used to test 

the long-term effects of various combinations of grazing intensity and season. 

A key discovery at the DER was that, from the standpoint of environmental impact, season of use matters more than grazing intensity. Research 

determined that grazing at a low to moderate level can occur without significant impact if grazing occurs during the cold part of the year, when plants are 

dormant. In contrast, when livestock graze in the spring, the most important 

period for active plant growth, plants are damaged and recovery is slow.

Today’s research is focused on mechanisms of ecosystem stability in 

response to various sources of disturbance. The goal is to learn how the whole 

ecosystem responds to the combined effects of invasive weeds and climate 

change in the presence of livestock grazing. The salt-desert shrubland ecosystem is a good place to address that question, because it is a relatively simple 

ecosystem that can function as a model for more complex systems. 

Scientists at Marcell 

EF in Minnesota 

were the first to 

demonstrate that soil 

compaction negatively 

affects future aspen 

productivity. Longterm studies on the 

San Dimas EF helped 

to address what people 

can and cannot do to 

prevent landslides and 

floods in the extensive 

chaparral stands of 

heavily populated 

southern California.
39

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

program (LTSP), of which many EFRs are a part, is the world’s most extensive 

coordinated effort to address questions of sustainable productivity in managed 

forests. Results illustrate the physical importance of organic soil cover in reducing soil erosion and maintaining favorable soil temperature and moisture relations 

during summer drought. Findings also show that the biological significance of soil 

compaction depends on soil texture.

Wildlife—Wildlife conservation is one of the important ecosystem services 

provided by forests and other wildlands. Research on a wide variety of wildlife 

species has increased significantly over the last 30 years. At least 16 EFRs have 

hosted field research on avian ecology, habitat use, censusing methods, and conservation, including both short-term, focused studies and studies integrated into 

a broad-based, interdisciplinary research program on ecosystem patterns and 

processes (Stoleson et al. 2011). Research findings have made significant contributions to conservation of endangered and threatened species such as red-cockaded woodpeckers (Escambia EF in Alabama, Hitchiti EF in Georgia, and Santee 

EF in South Carolina) and northern spotted owls (H.J. Andrews EF in Oregon). 

Avian community research looking at effects of forest management has been 

conducted at Fernow EF in West Virginia, Blacks Mountain EF in California, 

Coram EF in Montana, and Bent Creek EF in North Carolina (Stoleson et al. 

2011). Definitive results from the Starkey EFR have given managers defensible 

options for managing off-road recreation, range allotments, and fuel treatments 

in relation to mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk populations (Wisdom et al. 

2005). A major long-term focus of research on the Fort Valley EF was on the 

ecology and management of the Abert’s squirrel (Sciurus aberti) and its relation 

to management of ponderosa pine.

Atmospheric science and climate change—Until recently, scientists and managers 

could not have predicted that they would need to understand the effects of a changing climate on America’s natural resources and associated ecosystems. Fortunately, 

we have long-term records from many experimental forests that document trends 

in temperature and precipitation. Records from the Coweeta Hydrologic Lab, H.J. 

Andrews EF, Desert Experimental Range, Fernow EF, Hubbard Brook EF, Marcell 

EF, Olympic Cooperating EF, San Dimas EF, and Crossett EF display mean annual 

air temperatures for over 50 years (L. Rustad, pers. comm.). Research at Marcell 

EF has helped demonstrate the role of forests in mitigating climate change through 

measurements of carbon flux into and out of peatland forests.

Kane EF in Pennsylvania was the site of a systematic inventory that replicated the original forest survey conducted in 1932. The inventory provided an 

At least 16 EFRs 

have hosted field 

research on avian 

ecology, habitat use, 

censusing methods, 

and conservation, 

including both shortterm, focused studies 

and studies integrated 

into a broad-based, 

interdisciplinary 

research program on 

ecosystem patterns 

and processes.
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

opportunity to assess the feasibility of collecting the additional data required for 

a full carbon accounting as well as testing the carbon reporting capabilities of a 

key management tool, the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) (Hoover and Rebain 

2008). It is likely that all 80 experimental forests and ranges will be able to play a 

role in future research pertaining to climate change.

Climate Change Research on the Marcell Experimental Forest

Forests have been called the lungs of the planet, but peatlands—the swampy 

areas in northerly climates where soil is mostly organic and slow to decompose—equally deserve the title. Peatlands occupy a huge swath of territory 

north of the 45th parallel in North America, Europe, and Russia. Peatlands 

are carbon sinks, and highly efficient ones, because they pack away a disproportionately large amount of carbon dioxide (CO2

) relative to the land area 

they occupy. 

Research at Marcell EF, which sits squarely in the peatland zone of 

northern Minnesota, suggests that a warming climate could hasten the decomposition of peat. Researchers are measuring gases flowing into and out of the 

peatlands at the Marcell, trying to find out what is happening there. Questions 

include: is peatland still storing carbon and how much is it storing? Has it 

become a source of CO2, and if so how much of a source? If it is not a source, 

has its ability to sequester CO2 lessened over time? 

Researchers are also looking at the flux of methane, picking up where the 

studies left off in the early 1990s. Although less methane than CO2 is present in the atmosphere, methane produces a stronger atmospheric greenhouse 

effect. In addition, researchers are analyzing the Marcell’s collected data on 

dissolved organic carbon (DOC) which is a measure of carbon dissolved in the 

water flowing out of the peatlands. 

With the help of funding from NASA, Marcell scientists are comparing 

their data with those from other research sites in the Rocky Mountains and 

the northeastern United States, trying to get a picture of carbon flux across the 

landscape. The goal is to combine plot-scale measurements and extrapolate 

them accurately up to larger areas—states, regions, even the whole world. 

Better large-scale measures of carbon flux would improve the reliability 

of the computer models that monitor global climate. An important goal of 

research at the Marcell is to provide policymakers with insights on how to use 

the land in mitigating the warming of the planet. 

It is likely that all 80 

experimental forests 

and ranges will be 

able to play a role in 

future climate change 

research.
41

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Urban ecology/forestry and human uses—About 84 percent of the U. S. population (>308,700,00 as of 2010) (U. S. 2010 census) lives in the 366 metropolitan 

areas (cities with a core population of more than 50,000 people). Further, over 58 

percent lives in large urban areas (defined as communities with more than 200,000 

people). As this urbanization trend continues, interest in stewardship of urban 

natural resources and the effects of these resources on people’s lives is growing 

rapidly. Today about 35 percent of all EFRs are within 50 miles of an urban area 

(defined as a community with more than 50,000 people) and 15 percent within 25 

miles (Charnley and Cerveny 2011). These circumstances suggest a growing role for 

research that addresses both urban forestry/ecology and the social sciences of human uses and relationships with natural resources found in forests and rangelands. 

Researchers in the Baltimore Ecosystem Study (a cooperating experimental forest 

in the greater Baltimore region of Maryland) have examined interactions among 

urban forests, watersheds, soils, climate, and community well-being. Diversified 

recreation is likely to increase on public lands, and research at several EFRs is 

examining how these uses may affect wildlife and forests and range conditions 

(Charnley and Cerveny 2011). Even research on the traditional uses of wildlands by 

indigenous peoples have been researched in experimental forests (Oregon’s Cascade 

Head and H.J. Andrews EFs). At Luquillo EF in Puerto Rico, scientists are studying 

how natural and anthropogenic disturbances interact to influence forest characteristics (Charnley and Cerveny 2011). 

Ecological restoration—With a growing interest in the provision of ecosystem 

services from our wildlands, ecological restoration has become a primary objective of the Forest Service. Land managers need scientifically sound guidance on 

the approaches they can take to accomplish restoration in a wide variety of ecosystems. Research at Luquillo EF in Puerto Rico documented the effects of hurricanes on Caribbean forests, setting the stage for understanding how disturbances 

influence tropical forests and how these systems can recover. Bent Creek EF in 

North Carolina was the site of some of the earliest experiments on regeneration of 

hardwood species on degraded lands after extensive logging. Ecological restoration through silviculture to restore the savanna ecosystem was conducted in Sinkin 

EF in Missouri. This effort demonstrated techniques and evaluated the efficacy of 

reducing overstory tree density and reintroducing fire to develop the tree composition, structure, and herbaceous complex typical of a savanna (Lowenstein and 

Davidson 2002). Exploitation of longleaf pine-dominated forests, an ecosystem that 

once covered an estimated 36 million ha (90 million ac), or two-thirds of the area in 

the Southeast, led to a steady decline of its acreage. Longleaf pine forest was considered the third most endangered ecosystem in the United States. Research on the 

Diversified recreation 

is likely to increase 

on public lands, and 

research at several 

EFRs is examining how 

these uses may affect 

wildlife and forests and 

range conditions.
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Escambia EF (Alabama) and other experimental forests in the Southeast develop the 

science needed for regeneration of longleaf pine forests. 

There is a rich history of research and ecological monitoring conducted at 

EFRs, established decades ago, that are still active in some locations. The long-term 

data available at so many EFRs are fueling the research of tomorrow. 

These examples demonstrate how sustained, interdisciplinary research at EFRs 

can lead to discoveries based on well-designed studies, long-term data collection, 

and even through simple serendipity. The experimental forests and ranges and the 

research groups working there in long-term collaborations are seedbeds for discovery (Lugo et al. 2006).

Experimental Forest and Range Community of Interest

For most of the century-long history of the EFR network, sites were selected and 

operated as stand-alone units to represent a broad array of forest and grassland 

types and conditions. EFR leaders in the 20th century interacted primarily through 

informal or scientist-to-scientist ties (Ryan and Swanson 2014). Each site has developed its own community of interest with scientists, collaborators, and information 

users. Some have had a notable history of accomplishment and active participation 

by a broad array of Forest Service scientists, university collaborators, and scientists 

from other state or federal organizations. Others have modest histories with relatively narrow involvement.

The community of interest for each of these facilities also varies quite a bit. 

Most are hosted on national forests and the logistical support and involvement by 

national forest staff is integral to their success. 

Below is a brief summary of the different communities that are involved in the 

use, operation, and consumption of results from EFRs.

Use of EFRs by Forest Service Research—

Because of the individual histories of each EFR, the nature of the community of 

interest varies considerably among the EFRs. Many of the EFRs have a cadre of 

Forest Service scientists who devote most or all of their research interest to activities on the site. Some EFRs have little to no current research activity, although 

we have a designated “Lead (Forest Service) Scientist” for each of the 80 EFRs. 

Activity ebbs and flows. Some EFRs were highly active at different phases of this 

100-year history and dropped off for a variety of reasons such as retirement of key 

scientists, changing priorities in the NFS or R&D, variable interest and support 

from the host institution (usually units of the NFS), and changing emphases of the 

public. Nonetheless, there is a robust record of Forest Service R&D scientists making significant use of the EFR network. 
43

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Value of EFRs to and collaboration with America’s forests—

The Forest Service has what is now a unique association between a research 

organization and a land management organization. This relationship enables a 

world-class research staff to bring their expertise to bear directly and indirectly on 

about 80 percent of the critical land and resource management issues confronted 

by public and private land managers. The advantages of this connection should not 

be underestimated. 

The ability of the R&D branch to conduct research on the EFR network is 

facilitated in large part by land managers, largely on ranger districts and national 

forests (62 of the 80 EFRs are on Forest Service land), who participate in the 

operation of an EFR. The most successful and productive EFRs achieve their 

accomplishments because land managers take an active role in defining information 

needs and executing many of the treatments. They also provide a myriad of types of 

logistical support that is absolutely crucial to making an EFR function effectively. 

There are a variety of management and maintenance requirements to enable these 

locations to function properly. Roads, culverts, law enforcement, fuels reduction to 

prevent wildfires, and NEPA planning and execution are among a long list of activities that require conscientious attention. 

There is also considerable value in the collaboration between researchers and 

land managers to define the questions that are most relevant to sound land management. Defining the specific questions in this iterative manner leads to the most 

meaningful research and useful results for land managers. 

Use of experimental forests and ranges by collaborating scientists—

Collaboration with research partners from other institutions is one of the primary 

reasons for the success of many individual EFRs and the entire EFR network. The 

majority of our EFRs, particularly those with significant accomplishments, have 

regular participation by collaborating scientists from universities, other government 

agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and scientists from other institutions. 

Many EFRs have significant participation and, in some cases, active involvement 

in the administration of activities on the site by partners. Other EFRs host research 

stations from universities and with many researchers/faculty, graduate students, and 

classes who regularly visit and use the site for various purposes. Some important 

examples of collaboration include (but are not limited to):

• Sagehen EF—University of California–Berkeley

• Hawaii Experimental Tropical Forest—University of Hawaii

• H.J. Andrews EF—Oregon State University; University of Washington; others

• Hubbard Brook EF—a number of universities including Cornell University 

and Dartmouth College

The most successful 

and productive 

EFRs achieve their 

accomplishments 

because land 

managers take an 

active role in defining 

information needs and 

executing many of the 

treatments.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

• Wind River EF—University of Washington

• Fraser EF—Colorado State University; University of Colorado

• Bonanza Creek EF—University of Alaska Fairbanks

• Coweeta Hydrologic—University of Georgia; Virginia Tech

• Luquillo EF—University of Puerto Rico and a host of other universities

• Baltimore LTER—University of Maryland Baltimore County, Cary 

Institute of Ecosystem Studies

• Penobscot EF—University of Maine

Collaboration with other research institutions is crucial to EFRs. These institutions bring people, equipment, and intellectual resources along with funding from 

a variety of sources, including the NSF. Many research or monitoring efforts have 

participation by a variety of partners, and that creates a rich and productive intellectual environment.

Our EFRs also have productive collaborations with other network research 

initiatives such as the NSF’s LTER program and the planned National Ecological 

Observatory Network (NEON) program. 

Of the 26 LTER sites across the United States, six involve EFRs (includes one 

cooperating EFR):

• H.J. Andrews EF

• Baltimore Ecosystem Study (Cooperating Experimental Forest)

• Bonanza Creek EF

• Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory 

• Hubbard Brook EF

• Luquillo EF

Of the 20 NEON domains planned across the country, six involve EFRs (one 

cooperating EFR and three which include a “relocatable” NEON site):

• NEON Domain 1 (Northeast)—Bartlett Experimental Forest (relocatable 

site)

• NEON Domain 13 (Southern Rockies–Colorado Plateau)—Fraser EF (relocatable site)

• NEON Domain 16 (Pacific Northwest)—Wind River EF (core site)

• NEON Domain 16 (Pacific Northwest)—H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest 

(relocatable site)

• NEON Domain 17 (Pacific Southwest)—San Joaquin Experimental Range 

(core site)

• NEON Domain 19 (Taiga)—Caribou-Poker Creeks Cooperating EF (core site)

• NEON Domain 20 (Pacific Tropical)— Hawaii Tropical EF (core site)
45

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Experimental forests and ranges participate in numerous other scientific 

networks. These are detailed in chapter 4 where we discuss, in detail, the scientific 

questions that we are contending with both in current research and monitoring as 

well as future research and monitoring opportunities.

Value of research results from EFRs for private landowners and industry—

As stated earlier, the Forest Service has a direct and indirect role on about 80 

percent of America’s forests along a complex rural to urban gradient; most of these 

lands are nonfederal in ownership. Science plays a crucial role in stewardship of 

these private lands, as well the national forests and grasslands. The research work 

done on EFRs has a steady focus on informing policy and land-management decisions for all forest and rangelands, including the approximately 485 million acres 

of private forest lands in the United States. The researchers work independently 

and with a range of partners, including other agencies, academia, nonprofit groups, 

and industry. The information and technology produced through basic and applied 

science programs is available to all of the public for its benefit and use. 

Use of information generated at EFRs—

EFRs, like the rest of R&D, serve customers that include all Forest Service resource 

mission areas (NFS; State and Private Forestry; and International Programs), other 

government agencies, the global science community, and many segments of the 

American public. 

Many of the influential scientific findings described in chapter 5 have had a profound impact on land management. There is an increasing demand to encapsulate 

research findings derived from EFRs and other sites into forms more easily applied 

to land management issues. A variety of efforts have been explored to accomplish 

this through venues such as general technical reports (GTRs), demonstration sites, 

brochures, and technical transfer mechanisms. As a 2010 GAO assessment of R&D 

noted, there is substantial room for improvement in this across R&D; EFRs provide 

an excellent platform for testing and deploying new ideas in this arena.

Public interest in EFRs—

Although EFRs are not generally thought of as public use areas, some, especially 

those with facilities, offer excellent opportunities for outreach to diverse students 

and publics. All of the LTER programs hosted by EFRs (six) have educational components as part of their mission. For example, the Research Experiences for Teachers in the Experimental Forests (RET-EF) program is a joint effort between the 

Forest Service and the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation (HBRF). The primary 

aim of the RET-EF program is to provide K–12 science teachers with sustained, 

hands-on experience in environmental science research. The program serves three 
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

major purposes: science content, science teaching, and science communication. 

Another example involves the Sagehen EF and the activities of the Sagehen Creek 

Field Station of the University of California–Berkeley. Here the station manager 

hosts a variety of school and local community field trips and summer youth camps 

that enable children and adults from the nearby Truckee community an opportunity to experience and learn about all the wonders of a forest and a multi-faceted 

research program in that watershed. The opportunities for enhancing this kind of 

activity are huge. Education is a strong partner of research, and each of the 80 EFRs 

has possibilities for establishing or expanding these opportunities.

Use of EFRs also includes the opportunity to provide demonstration sites as 

educational tools for Forest Service personnel, such as demonstration plots, which 

provide on-the-ground evidence of new, innovative management techniques. This 

enables land managers, foresters, and district rangers and others to see tangible 

evidence of how management objectives and the scientific underpinnings behind 

those objectives are expressed in the field. Field tours to visit demonstration sites 

prove very valuable for conveying research results. 

There is an important and growing interest in research that addresses human 

uses of urban forests and other ecological systems in and near urban/suburban 

communities and the ecosystem services provided by those systems. We live in 

an increasingly urbanized society and thus the benefits and amenities provided by 

urban ecosystems are growing in importance. The EFRs distributed around the 

country offer a resource for both education and research concerning the relationship 

between people and their natural environment. This represents a large community 

of interest that, for the most part, does not yet exist. With emerging interests in 

these areas it appears that there will be a growing role for education and research 

that involves the interests of the human communities. The Baltimore Ecosystem 

Study, a cooperating experimental forest, is a noteworthy example of the emergence 

of this field of research.

Despite the various success stories that we can refer to, Forest Service R&D 

does not have the staff to manage any kind of public use activities. Nonetheless, as 

highlighted above, a number of EFRs, with the significant participation by one or 

more of the collaborating institutions, are able to provide meaningful educational 

opportunities for K-12 schools, undergraduate and graduate programs, and community connections. 

Education is a strong 

partner of research, 

and each of the 80 

EFRs has possibilities 

for expanding 

collaboration 

with educational 

institutions, as 

well as provideing 

demonstration sites 

that provide on-theground evidence 

of new, innovative 

management 

techniques to Forest 

Service personnel.
47

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Chapter 2: Looking to the Future

The Need for a Networked Organization

What are the information needs of forest, rangeland, and resource managers today? 

What are information needs of the future that we may not currently anticipate? 

These are important questions that Forest Service Research and Development (FS 

R&D) is challenged by to optimize the service we provide to land management and 

policy communities both within the Forest Service and outside.

Forest Service R&D works on a wide array of research and monitoring activities that address many of these information needs. The core of our research is 

founded in the many individual research projects conducted by our more than 500 

research scientists at seven research stations distributed around the United States. 

This body of research can be organized and communicated in many ways, depending on the audience we want to reach. Individual research initiatives will continue 

to be an important portion of the objectives and anticipated accomplishments 

derived from experimental forests and ranges (EFRs). 

Ecosystems have changed more in the last 50 years than at any other time 

in human history, largely as a result of factors operating at multiple spatial and 

temporal scales (MEA 2006). It is now clear that local processes affect broadscale ecological dynamics, and also that broad-scale drivers can overwhelm local 

patterns and processes. Understanding these cross-scale interactions requires a 

conceptual framework based on connectivity in material and information flow 

across scales (Peters et al. 2008). Connectivity has been altered in unprecedented 

ways through human transport of propagules, toxins, and diseases, as well as 

anthropomorphic disturbances and changes in land use (MEA 2006). Understanding global connectivity and its consequences requires the creation of research 

and monitoring across ecological networks for observation and experimentation 

(Peters et al. 2008).

Concurrently, the science of landscape-scale ecology has evolved rapidly in 

the last two decades and has had a significant impact on the perspective that land 

managers have developed about planing and executeing management action. New 

analytical tools such as geographic information systems (GIS) and remote sensing 

have emerged in tandem with the growing awareness and attention to scaling issues 

in forest landscapes. Managers have turned their attention to managing landscapes 

at multiple scales for the sustainability of a broad assortment of ecosystem functions (Bradford et al. 2009). 

These circumstances have spawned a considerable new array of questions that 

span substantially larger spatial and time scales than were previously considered by 

land managers. Issues such as climate change, invasive species, continued changes 

in land use and land status, and many others have bred numerous critical questions 

Ecosystems have 

changed more in the 

last 50 years than 

at any other time 

in human history, 

largely as a result 

of factors operating 

at multiple spatial 

and temporal scales. 

Local processes 

affect broad-scale 

ecological dynamics, 

and broad-scale 

drivers can overwhelm 

local patterns 

and processes. 

Understanding 

these interactions 

requires a conceptual 

framework based on 

connectivity in material 

and information flow 

across scales.
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

to which managers seek answers. These challenges will require additional and novel 

sampling designs coupled with innovative, state-of-the-art scientific infrastructure 

to gather the necessary data. The Forest Service collection of 80 EFRs offers a 

platform for addressing many of these needs. 

Applying the term “network” to EFRs needs to be done carefully because 

“networks” associated with EFRs have taken many forms. Scientists at EFRs 

have a long history of collaborating in formal and informal ways with many 

partners, including scientists at universities, other agencies, and other EFRs, 

and with land managers and policymakers (Swanson et al. 2010). EFR programs 

and scientists have participated in other networks, some interagency, such as the 

Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) network and the National Atmospheric 

Deposition Program (NADP), and some international, such as UNESCO’s Man 

and Biosphere (MAB) Program. Understanding the nested sets of networks 

within which EFRs operate helps to give perspective on what kinds of linkages 

different network approaches foster among sites and what additional actions may 

be needed to make EFRs a functioning research network. Ryan and Swanson 

(2014) broadly categorized networks in which EFRs have participated to illustrate the kinds of relationships each has created among its members, including 

participating EFRs.

• Networks-in-Name. These provide recognition, but little or no significant 

network functionality for their members. For example, nine EFRs have 

been named Biosphere Reserves of the UNESCO MAB Program (http://

www.georgewright.org/mab.html#Anchor-Are-35882), recognizing them 

as members of an international group of significantly intact ecosystems set 

aside for study, with some opportunities for experimentation. Membership 

indicates that these sites have high intrinsic value for understanding natural 

and managed ecosystems, but beyond occasional scientist-to-scientist contacts, the MAB Program does little to create significant interactions among 

its member sites, including participating EFRs. We refer to these as “informal networks.”

• Environmental Monitoring Networks. EFRs have participated for 

many years in a variety of environmental monitoring networks, primarily as sites for collecting observational data. Data gathered through these 

networks such as the NDAP usually follow standard protocols; data 

management, analysis, interpretation, dissemination, and publication 

are usually done by organizations that produce relatively little interaction among the participating sites, including EFRs. We refer to these as 

“observational networks.”
49

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

• Experimentation Networks. EFRs have been connected by scientists who 

have collaborated on cross-site experimentation and observational programs. The focus has usually been one-time or fixed-term studies even 

though some individual experiments may run for a long time, in some cases 

for decades. Some experiments are designed and contained within a subset of the EFR system and other studies have been organized by scientists 

partially or entirely outside the EFR system. We refer to these as “experimentation networks.” This can also include use of ecological gradients as 

a “treatment” effect. With the broad geographic distribution of EFRs across 

the landscape of the United States, there are many potential ways to implement these “natural experiments.”

• Integrated, Long-Term Research Networks. These are composed of 

study sites, collaborating research programs, and a social network of scientists from across sites in which participants are committed to sharing 

ideas and cooperating on multiple long- and short-term projects. Linking 

together the science capacity of individual sites makes it possible to address 

network-scale questions corresponding to the extent of the network. Both 

LTER and EFRs are attempting to reach a high level of research-network 

functionality, although both were initially set up as a collection of sites 

rather than as a functioning network. The National Ecological Observatory 

Network (NEON) is a proposed network that has received some funding 

through NSF. It is explicitly intended to collect data over a long term at 

sites representing the ecological domains of the United States. Research 

networks combine aspects of environmental monitoring, experimentation, 

and synthesis. Critical ingredients for network science include a culture 

that encourages and rewards network science, support for network projects, management of collaborations that build and sustain a strong and 

open community, and infrastructure for cross-site investigations, especially 

information-sharing systems. We refer to these as “synthesis networks.” 

We use this typology of networks to organize and present the current portfolio 

of research and monitoring initiatives in which EFRs participate.

Ongoing research and monitoring projects involving the EFR network—

Some of the greatest values of the EFR system are the ongoing, long-term 

studies of the effects of a changing climate on natural resources, streamflow, 

vegetation, and biogeochemistry from experimental watersheds. These data are 

crucial for examining ecosystem services from forests over time and are of sufficiently long duration now to be extremely valuable for quantifying the extent 

Some of the greatest 

values of the EFR 

system are the 

ongoing, long-term 

studies of the effects 

of a changing climate 

on natural resources, 

streamflow, vegetation, 

and biogeochemistry. 

These data are 

crucial for examining 

ecosystem services 

from forests over time 

and are of sufficiently 

long duration to be 

extremely valuable for 

quantifying the extent 

of changing climate at 

multiple sites across 

the country.
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

of changing climate at multiple sites across the country and long-term responses 

for forest management. Emphasis is added here to the importance of having 

baseline environmental data. Such data are crucial in the use of indicators and 

assessing changes over time, e.g., as is being done in the National Climate 

Assessment. EFRs generally provide high-quality data across a broad range. 

The lessons to be learned from these records are absolutely critical to informing 

traditional management issues of the Forest Service and to the contemporary 

issues of climate change and other forms of environmental change. The evolving 

interest by leadership in upgrading the Forest Service Inventory, Monitoring, 

and Assessment efforts draws more attention to the value of an effective baseline 

monitoring program.

A number of cross-site research projects have been conducted on EFRs. These 

projects have largely been initiated by “bottom-up” collaborations of individual 

scientists and staff at scattered locations across the country. Much has been fueled 

by funding from other organizations such as the LTER program, but the accomplishments can be attributed to grassroots efforts and the energy and enthusiasm of 

individual scientists. These ad-hoc efforts have been productive, but also can suffer 

from inadequate cross-site coordination and from the risk of being discontinued 

should resources continue to decline or new initiatives supplant them, or when key 

personnel retire or move to new positions. The organization must determine how it 

can effectively keep researchers connected so that networking does not end when 

key people leave the organization.

A strategic and comprehensive look at these current initiatives is important 

to give us a full picture of what we are learning and how that information can be 

applied to current and future scientific challenges. Few or perhaps none of us can 

comprehend the full, long-term scientific contribution of these many activities. We 

have compiled a master list of the current research, monitoring, and synthesis work 

to form a foundation for our future. In doing so, we have organized these activities 

into a matrix: one that describes the types of work being done and the themes of 

topics to help understand an array of activities this large. The types of work could 

be organized in a variety of ways, but we have chosen to use fairly conventional 

categories (described above), which are comparable to ways other research organizations view their portfolio of work:

• Informal Networks (networks in name only)

• Observational Networks (environmental monitoring)

• Experimentation Networks (research studies)

• Synthesis Networks (integrated, long-term networks where data are being 

compiled and synthesized)
51

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

After partitioning the current work into these categories, we further parse the 

work into the following six general topical themes. These categories can also be 

cross-walked roughly to Forest Service R&D Strategic Program Areas (SPA), which 

are used for reporting accomplishments and organizing outputs:

• Biodiversity (wildlife, fish, other organisms)—Wildlife and Fish SPA

• Disturbances (fire, floods, climate change, invasive pests and pathogens)— 

Fire SPA

• Water and watersheds ( soil, hydrology, water quality, and regional ecosystem services)—Water, Air, Soil SPA

• Climate and land use change (atmosphere and global ecosystem services—Water, Air, Soil SPA

• Resource management (land use and management issues, including vegetation management that influences carbon)—Resource Management and 

Use SPA

• Social sciences (recreation, arts and humanities, urban influences)—

Recreation SPA

Obviously, some of the ongoing projects overlap more than one of these categories, but this list should provide an easily understood class for each ongoing project. 

Table 6 summarizes all known activities within this four-by-six matrix. The list of 

these ongoing research or monitoring activities is provided in table 7. Appendix 2 

provides descriptions of all projects.

This array of current initiatives covers a number of the key priorities for 

informing conservation and management policy in the United States as forecast 

by Fleishman et al. (2011). A large panel of distinguished scientists in the land and 

resource conservation community carefully considered a wide range (more than 

500) of possible questions and ultimately selected a “top 40 priorities” for multidisciplinary research directed toward informing some of the most important current 

and future decisions about biological conservation and ecological processes in the 

Table 6—Current research and monitoring network activities on experimental forests and ranges (EFR)

EFR network

ongoing activities Biodiversity Disturbances

Water and 

watersheds

Climate and 

carbon

Resource 

management

Social 

sciences All themes

Informal networks — — 3 39 34, 35 4

Observational 

networks

7, 11, 14, 16 — 2, 5, 13, 

37, 38

1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 

12, 31

15 — 17

Experimentation 

networks

— — 32, 36 33 — — —

Synthesis networks 29 — 19, 22, 30 18 20, 23, 25, 26, 

27, 28

— 21, 24
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Table 7—Ongoing research and monitoring activities

Project 

number Cross-site activity

Type of data 

collection

Theme of data 

collection Secondary theme 

Partner 

organizations

1 Clim DB Observational Climate and carbon — —

2 Hydro DB Observational Water and 

watersheds

— —

3 Watershed directory Informal Water and 

watersheds

— —

4 EcoTrends Informal All — —

5 Stream Chem DB Observational Water and 

watersheds

— —

6 AmeriFlux Observational Climate and carbon — —

7 Federal pollinator network Observational Biodiversity — —

8 Forest Service climate tower 

network

Observational Climate and carbon — —

9 Monitoring climate change 

impacts on EFRs

Observational Climate and carbon — —

10 Clean air status and trends 

network (CASTNET)

Observational Climate and carbon — —

11 National ecological 

observatory network 

(NEON)

Observational Biodiversity Climate and carbon National Science 

Foundation

12 National atmospheric 

depositions program 

(NADP)

Observational Climate and carbon — —

13 Soil climate analysis network 

(SCAN)

Observational Water and 

watersheds

Climate and carbon —

14 USA National phenology 

network (NPN)

Observational Biodiversity Climate and carbon —

15 Forest Inventory and 

Analysis on EFRs

Observational Resource 

management

Biodiversity —

16 Phenocam Observational Biodiversity — Harvard 

University

17 Regional environmental 

sensor network

Observational All — —

18 EFR climate synthesis Synthesis Climate and carbon — —

19 Hydroclimatic effects on 

ecosystem response

Synthesis Water and 

watersheds

Climate and carbon —

20 Integrating landscape-scale 

forest measurements

Synthesis Resource 

management

Climate and carbon —

21 Long-term ecological 

research (LTER)

Synthesis All — —

22 Long-term soil productivity 

study (LTSP)

Synthesis Water and 

watersheds

Resource 

management

—

23 Long-term stand responses to 

silviculture

Synthesis Resource 

management

— —
53

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Project 

number Cross-site activity

Type of data 

collection

Theme of data 

collection Secondary theme 

Partner 

organizations

24 Quantifying uncertainty in 

ecosystem studies (QUEST)

Synthesis All — —

25 U.S. Forest Service 

management intensity 

demonstration plots

Synthesis Resource 

management

— —

26 Systematic experimental 

forest inventory data as a 

signal of forest change

Synthesis Resource 

management

Biodiversity —

27 Long-term regeneration 

research for the 

development of the Forest 

Vegetation Simulator (FVS)

Synthesis Resource 

management

— —

28 Decomposition on the forest 

floor: soil productivity 

studies

Synthesis Resource 

Management

Water and 

Watersheds

—

29 Vegetation dynamics across 

EFRs

Synthesis Biodiversity Resource 

management

—

30 Water supply sensitivity and 

ecosystem resilience to land 

use change, climate change, 

and climate variability

Synthesis Water and 

watersheds

Climate and carbon —

31 International cooperative 

program on assessment and 

monitoring of air pollution 

effects on forests 

Observational Climate and carbon — —

32 Long-term inter-site 

decomposition experiment 

team (LIDET)

Experimentation Water and 

watersheds

Biodiversity —

33 Lotic inter-site nitrogen 

experiment (LINXII)

Experimentation Climate and carbon — —

34 Maps and locals (MALS) Informal Social Sciences Water and 

Watersheds

—

35 Engaging arts and 

humanities

Informal Social Sciences all —

36 Detritus input and removal 

treatments (DIRT)

Experimentation Water and 

watersheds

Biodiversity —

37 Nutrient network (NutNet) Observational Water and 

watersheds

— —

38 Snowpack telemetry 

(SNOTEL)

Observational Water and 

watersheds

Climate and carbon NRCS

39 Basic meteorological station Informal Climate and carbon — —

40 Long-term ecosystem 

productivity study 

Experimentation Biodiversity Climate and carbon —

Table 7—Ongoing research and monitoring activities (continued)
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Table 7—Ongoing research and monitoring activities (continued)

United States. Among these 40 key questions are seven that are especially relevant 

to forest and range management:

• What quantity and quality of surface and groundwater will be necessary to 

sustain U.S. human populations and ecosystem resilience during the next 

100 years?

• How do different strategies for ecosystem management across the gradient 

of development intensities affect human health in urban areas?

• How do different strategies for growing and harvesting biomass or biofuels 

affect ecosystems and associated social and economic systems?

• How do different strategies for managing forests, grasslands, and agricultural 

systems affect carbon storage, ecosystem resilience, and other desired benefits?

• What are the ecological and economic effects of different methods of 

restoring forests, wetlands, and streams?

• What are the reliable scientific metrics for detecting chronic, long-term 

changes in ecosystems?

• What are the relative ecological effects of increasing the intensity versus 

spatial extent of agriculture and timber production?

Project 

number Cross-site activity

Type of data 

collection

Theme of data 

collection Secondary theme 

Partner 

organizations

41 Forest ecosystem response 

to regeneration treatments 

for upland hardwoods 

(sustaining oaks)

Experimentation Resource 

management

— —

42 U.S. regional climate 

reference network 

(USRCRN) station

Observational Climate and carbon — —

43 Wood decomposition 

experiment

Experimentation Resource 

management

— —

44 Remote assessment of forest 

ecosystem stress (RAFES) 

Experimentation Resource 

management

— —

45 Groundwater survey Observational Water and 

watersheds

— —

46 Longleaf pine restoration and 

ecosystem productivity

Experimentation Resource 

management

— —

47 FACE (free-air carbon 

dioxide enrichment) 

experiment decomposition 

studies

Experimentation Climate and carbon — —

48 Smithsonian global program 

for long-term, large-scale 

forest research

Observational Biodiversity — —
55

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Each of these key questions is being addressed in some way with the various 

ongoing monitoring, research, and synthesis activities on our EFRs. Having a network 

of localities contributing long-term and focused monitoring and research data on 

these topics is a truly significant contribution to the ecological health of our country.

In addition to the wide range of potential applications to these current activities, 

it is apparent that collecting and maintaining these data will lead to future uses 

and corresponding questions that we cannot currently anticipate. There are many 

applications of historical data sets that are now reaping value for addressing emerging environmental questions. These longitudinal studies consisting of repeated 

observations of the same variables over long periods will be one of the hallmarks 

for which Forest Service EFRs will be recognized.

Challenges to implementing and sustaining these activities—

It is clear that the efforts described above have emerged through ad hoc action with 

minimal, primarily one-time resources supporting the effort. One can argue that 

these bottom-up initiatives are well developed ideas with a strong scientific foundation. The scientists involved typically are quite dedicated to the success of their 

research and invest much intellectual capital toward that success. However, these 

efforts cannot come close to realizing their potential without more dedicated investments from the Forest Service to address the many requirements (infrastructure 

maintenance, data management, dissemination of results, etc.) typically associated 

with successful research and monitoring activities. An excellent case study to illustrate this issue is the recent effort to assemble basic temperature data from EFRs to 

provide the Chief of the Forest Service with a synopsis of temperature records that 

tell a story about our warming climate. 

This synthesis effort was the first systematic evaluation of EFR climate data, 

to examine patterns and trends across all EFR sites using a consistent framework 

and methodology. In this initial analysis, the focus was on only air temperature. 

Many EFRs have been collecting air temperature, precipitation, and other climate 

data (e.g., relative humidity, windspeed) for decades; several have conducted 

in-depth analysis of climate trends within their own sites, and a few studies have 

been initiated to evaluate climate change impacts across a subset of EFRs. The 

expectation was that owing to the anticipated ease and consistency in measuring air 

temperature (e.g., daily readings from a maximum/minimum thermometer), a large 

proportion of the 80 EFRs would have a long-term temperature record of suitable 

quality, duration, and accessibility for statistical analyses. This expectation was not 

borne out; only 16 sites had useable long-term data sets.

One other consideration that needs to be acknowledged is the current forest 

management policy environment that many EFRs find themselves in at this time. 
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

A critical element in defining the value—past, present, and future—of EFRs is the 

ability to do manipulative research at meaningful scales. As we move into the future, 

the outcomes of such research will become more and more important in informing 

policy and in providing options and practices for landowners and land managers. 

However, any proposed work on an EFR is necessarily subject to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. In recent years, many Forest Service 

management projects have been challenged by the public through appeals and sometimes legal action. This has included some proposed research work that has delayed 

or stopped some projects from going forward. This creates significant uncertainty in 

planning and executing rigorous experimental design and poses a threat to a scientist 

whose career depends on timely execution of scientifically defensible field research. 

While good relationships with local national forests and stakeholders can 

potentially limit delays or stops, it cannot prevent them. Addressing these concerns 

can significantly increase the costs (both upfront and in litigation) of trying to carry 

out manipulative research on EFRs. The costs and risks associated with this need to 

be stated upfront and taken into account when considering research project development. We cannot assume that a well-designed research project can stand solely on its 

scientific merits. Careful consideration of the potential public concerns and sometimes extensive public outreach must be factored into project design and execution.

New ecological initiatives (research or monitoring) that the EFR network is

positioned to address—

In addition to the value we stand to garner from sustaining existing network 

activities, there are many new potential initiatives that could have a meaningful 

impact on future land management issues. Forest Service R&D staff has identified 

a number of potential activities that could be added to our portfolio of research 

and monitoring activities using the EFR network. Table 8 summarizes the ideas 

assembled to date (app. 2 provides a short description of each idea). This includes 

ideas solicited from various NFS technical experts including:

• Regional wildlife biologists

• Regional silviculturalists

• Regional geneticists

• Regional vegetation ecologists

• Regional range conservationists

There will be many ideas for adding new initiatives and these are not all 

necessarily separate, independent activities. Many of these tasks could be operated 

through complementary efforts. Once the necessary equipment has been acquired 

and deployed, a small number (but critical mass) of well trained staff may be 
57

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Table 8—New ecological initiatives

Project 

number Cross-site activity

Type of data 

collection

Theme of data 

collection

Secondary 

theme 

1 EFR meta-database of site information and content Informal All

2 Quaking aspen growth, yield, and mortality across the 

United States

Experimentation Resource 

management

3 A comprehensive reassessment of stand development and 

timber management guidelines in the northern Lake 

States

Synthesis Resource 

management

4 Development of modeling tools for predicting smoke 

dispersion from low-intensity fires

Synthesis Resource 

management

5 National silvicultural synthesis: long-term compartment 

study outcomes

Synthesis Resource 

management

6 Nontimber forest product ecology and response to 

disturbance: insights from EFR long-term data sets

Synthesis Resource 

management

7 Wood decomposition and its role in the forest carbon 

cycle across the conterminous United States

Experimentation Climate and 

carbon

8 Airborne LiDAR Surveys of vegetation and topography Observational Resource 

management

9 Disturbance monitoring; protocols to measure intensity, 

severity, and extent of major disturbances

Observational Disturbances

10 Vegetation monitoring; assess declines and advances of 

dominant plant species

Observational Biodiversity

11 Wildlife monitoring; assess declines and advances of 

common wildlife species (birds, mammals)

Observational Biodiversity

12 Carbon inventory; sample all carbon pools using longterm plots and standardized protocolsObservational Climate and 

carbon

13 Biophysical drivers; augment standard weather 

measurements with other biophysical processes 

measurements 

Observational Climate and 

carbon

14 Indicator species monitoring; a standard set of biological 

indicators to monitor magnitude and trends

Observational Biodiversity

15 Biomonitors

16 Invasive species

17 Climate variability

18 Common garden experiments to assess key plant species 

adaptation to climate change

Experimentation Climate and 

carbon

Biodiversity

19 EFR science synthesis of biological responses to stream 

nutrients

20 Legacy study using the long-term ecosystem productivity 

(LTEP) experiments implemented on Olympic State 

Forest, in the greater H.J. Andrews EF area, and near 

Cascade Head EF

21 Continental-scale questions for EFRs
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Project 

number Cross-site activity

Type of data 

collection

Theme of data 

collection

Secondary 

theme 

22 Understanding the controls on clean water delivery from 

headwater forests—synthesizing long-term data from 

USFS experimental forests

Synthesis Water and 

watersheds

23 Experimental management of riparian wind buffers 

to provide for both riparian habitat functions and 

commodity production

24 Understanding changes in ecosystem function at 

continental scales: monitoring in the EFR network 

with permanent vegetation plots

Observational Biodiversity

25 Understanding ungulate herbivory as a chronic 

disturbance interacting with episodic disturbance

Experimentation Biodiversity

26 Evaluating fuel, vegetation, and disturbance dynamics 

using the irregular uneven-aged silvicultural system 

within different forest structure stages on the Black 

Hills EF

27 Landscape-scale management experiments to test 

effectiveness of riparian management practices based 

on historical range of natural variability

Experimentation Resource 

management

28 Testing different silvicultural techniques for creating and 

maintaining structurally complex forests 

Experimentation Resource 

management

29 Accumulation of heavy metals in watershed soils and 

their subsequent removal during postfire erosion events 

leading to contamination of drainage sediments

30 Develop guidelines for eastern shortleaf pine natural and 

artificial regeneration in the Southern Appalachians

31 Animal damage control (ADC) on the Chippewa 

National Forest

32 Ecological site development for the Caddo National 

Grasslands, north-central Texas

33 Spruce reforestation techniques

34 Developing guidelines for assisted migration of 

populations within major tree species in the Eastern 

United States

35 Impacts of herbicide use on forest land to control 

vegetation

36 Region 1 and RMRS draft adaptive management 

research framework (AMRF)

37 Ground water survey

38 What is the effect of a wide range of management 

strategies on long-term ecosystem productivity? 

Experimentation Biodiversity

39 A sentinel monitoring network for detecting the 

hydrologic effects of climate change on headwater 

stream ecosystems and biological indicators

Observational Biodiversity Water and 

watersheds

Table 8—New ecological initiatives (continued)
59

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

capable of efficiently collecting and managing the data across the network. We will 

need to assess a number of factors that will, in total across all activities at a given 

site, dictate the resources needed to accomplish each:

• Acquisition of samples/data (periodicity, geographic location, technical 

expertise needed to ensure consistent data quality) 

• Maintenance of equipment (frequency, costs)

• Processing of samples (costs, periodicity)

• Management of data (input into electronic storage, archiving, and access)

Undoubtedly, many of these routine data collection efforts could overlap in 

ways that can realize economies of scale and thus reduce overall costs (e.g., centralize sample analysis of soil or water in one location as a service for other EFRs). 

Careful evaluation of which research or monitoring is needed combined with an 

evaluation of how to most efficiently design field protocols will lead to an assessment of what resources will be necessary. 

Social science issues and the arts/humanities that could be addressed through 

the EFR network—

When the first EFRs were established not long after the turn of the 20th century, 

no one imagined or planned for a future in which the United States population 

would exceed 300 million, or that more than 80 percent of these people would live 

in urban areas. There was little to no concern about issues such as the quality of 

human uses or the impacts of human activities. It is a much different landscape 

today and many new issues exist that now involve topics such as economics, historical studies, human population and land-use change, human values, and interdisciplinary social-ecological studies (Charnley and Cerveny 2011). These trends have 

opened a new avenue for the social sciences to take advantage of EFRs. Interestingly, more than 35 percent of the EFRs in the United States are within 50 miles of 

urban areas (i.e., cities of more than 50,000 people) (Charnley and Cerveny 2011). 

The potential exists for many new lines of research on the network of EFRs. 

Engagement of arts and humanities in these public places dedicated to learning 

is also just beginning. In part, this reflects recognition that management of public 

forest lands takes more than “scientific forestry;” it is a profoundly social and 

cultural enterprise and the beauty and dynamism of many parts of our EFR system 

are powerful and inspirational (Swanson 2008). A very interesting and rich body of 

arts and humanities works is emerging from several of our EFRs. The disciplines 

involved include humanities (creative writing, environmental philosophy, environmental history), the arts (visual arts, dance, music, drama/theater), and sciences 

(ecology, earth and social sciences). 

When the first EFRs 

were established, 

no one imagined a 

future in which the 

U.S. population would 

exceed 300 million, 

or that more than 80 

percent of these people 

would live in urban 

areas. Today, many 

issues involve topics 

such as economics, 

historical studies, 

human population 

and land-use change, 

human values, and 

interdisciplinary socialecological studies.
60

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Education and community involvement are also facets of the EFR portfolio 

emerging as an important activity. While many of these activities are largely ad hoc 

and generated by individuals who have a particular interest, it is quite possible that 

these activities could become a more formal part of future initiatives at EFRs. Notwithstanding the efforts that have occurred at a number of EFRs, there is enormous 

untapped potential for education and outreach activities at most of our EFRs.

All of these emerging activities will involve segments of our society that heretofore have had little to no participation in what happens at EFRs. With continuing 

demographic trends toward a more urban society, it will be important for the EFR 

network to embrace this additional role in the future. This could become an important facet of work at many EFRs in the near future. 
61

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Chapter 3: The Future of the EFR Network

The 80 experimental forests and ranges (EFRs) across the United States offer an 

abundance of special opportunities for addressing key land management issues for 

the Forest Service, other research and land management institutions, and the general public. A significant portion of the accomplishments and future opportunities 

of the EFRs across the United States continues to lie with the site-by-site research 

that addresses local questions of interest. However, here we define and focus upon 

the directions that are suggested to specifically take the collection of EFRs, the 

network, into the future.

For most of the century-long history of the EFR system, EFR sites were 

selected and operated as stand-alone units to represent a broad array of forest 

and grassland types and conditions. In the first century of EFRs, their leaders 

interacted primarily through informal or scientist-to-scientist ties with no explicit 

intention of networking them (Ryan and Swanson 2014). We have already discussed some of the significant achievements that have come from the research 

and monitoring done on EFRs. However, we have just begun to capitalize on the 

possibilities of networking EFRs to address many of the pressing issues of today 

and tomorrow.

Why a Network?

Evolving societal expectations and science questions call for increasingly 

broad-scale and interdisciplinary ecological research (Lugo 2006). The kinds 

of environmental challenges we face today require greater innovation from the 

research, management, political, environmental, and resource-use communities. 

The evolution of land and resource management scientific information needs has 

progressed to include the arena of “macro systems biology.” This new demand 

for broader ecological insight includes research on biological systems at regional 

to continental scales. This approach requires quantitative, interdisciplinary, 

systems-oriented research on biosphere processes and their complex interactions with climate, land use, and invasive species. There are important new 

programs being initiated by other organizations (NSF, USGS, NASA, NOAA, 

NEON, etc.) and other scientific disciplines (meteorology, public health, sustainable agriculture, etc.) to get out in front of these issues. It is important that we 

capitalize on efficiencies in our existing network and any future investments to 

translate results and opportunities to knowledge that informs forestry and natural 

resources management. 

The obvious implication is that we need sites strategically distributed across 

geographic domains and along environmental gradients, sampling a full complement of locations that are representative of the diversity of environments in 

A significant 

portion of the 

accomplishments and 

future opportunities 

of EFRs across the 

United States lies with 

site-by-site research 

that addresses 

local questions of 

interest. Here we 

define and focus 

upon the directions 

that are suggested to 

specifically take the 

EFR network into the 

future.
62

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

question. Networking has the advantage of allowing for the establishment of 

comparative ecological studies, the installation of experiments along abiotic and 

biotic gradients, and the quick assessment of the variability in processes and 

structures of ecosystems (Cole et al. 1991). Many of the questions that are important 

today, or that we anticipate to be important tomorrow, are addressed only with this 

kind of sampling array. It is also essential that Forest Service R&D be in a position 

to “share a usable network” with other capable scientists who need, but do not have 

access to, the wealth of data offered by the EFR network.

The goal of forming EFRs into a more functional research network is to 

enhance their combined scientific capacity to address pressing, regional-tocontinental environmental issues, such as predicting environmental effects of 

widespread influences including global climate change, altered atmospheric 

chemistry, or urban growth on forests and grasslands. Through better coordination and less duplication of effort, a network could also make better use of the 

long-term investment in scientific research that the Forest Service has made at 

these sites. It has already been recognized that an information-sharing infrastructure to facilitate access to, and synthesis of, cross-site data will be an integral 

component of the foundation for a research network (Ryan and Swanson 2014). A 

more functional network will also play a vital role in the Inventory, Monitoring, 

and Assessment initiative of the entire Forest Service. Review appendix 2 for 

details on the kinds of networks in which the EFRs across the country are currently participating. 

What Is the Niche for the EFR Network?

Ecological research and monitoring is the domain of many government, educational, and private institutions. As scientific information needs continue to evolve, 

these institutions adapt to meet those needs. Competition, while not a purposeful 

part of the process, results from different organizations attempting to position 

themselves to garner support and funding. 

The competition is fiercer than we are likely to acknowledge, particularly 

with declining agency budgets and the zeal to capture and identify with emerging and increasingly broad ecological issues. The need for information is acute 

and organizations whose mission it is to deliver such information need to be 

responsive. Nonetheless, the types of information needed require certain kinds 

of expertise and facilities to obtain and deliver reliable results. The competitive 

advantages of the EFR network were reviewed in chapters 1 and 2. These are 

significant and clearly suggest where the appropriate niche of the EFR network 

may lie. Again, it all depends on the kinds of questions that are to be addressed. 

The goal of forming 

EFRs into a more 

functional research 

network is to enhance 

their combined 

scientific capacity 

to address pressing, 

regional-to-continental 

environmental issues, 

such as predicting 

the effects of climate 

change, altered 

atmospheric chemistry, 

or urban growth on 

forests and grasslands.
63

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Of the many information products that society demands of its scientific infrastructure, a certain subset fall more closely within the niche of experimental 

forests and ranges, and set an effective research and monitoring network apart 

from other options:

• A robust legacy of data collection and research results

• Access to high-quality baseline data

• Long-term control of large forested landscapes

• Stability and longevity of sites

• Landscapes with a well known and documented history

• Richness of prior research and access to those findings

• Sentinel sites for monitoring strategies or where one can conduct experiments and test management approaches

• Adequate representation across ecological gradients of interest

• A connection between research initiatives and management priorities

• Logistical support and access

• Cooperation and support from site managers and other research institutions.

An array of possible scientific questions suited to the EFR network is 

considered in chapter 4. Which ones are these facilities best suited to address? 

Some of these environmental questions require intensive data collection. The 

National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) was designed to detect 

and enable forecasting of ecological change at continental scales over multiple 

decades. NEON will use distributed sensor networks, coordinated airborne 

observations, and experiments linked by advanced cyber infrastructure to 

collect ecological data across the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and 

Puerto Rico. 

NEON has partitioned the United States into 20 ecoclimatic domains, each of 

which represents different regions of vegetation, landforms, climate, and ecosystem 

performance. In those domains, NEON will collect site-based data about climate 

and atmosphere, soils and streams and ponds, and a variety of organisms. 

A second example of intensive ecological monitoring and research is the LongTerm Ecological Research program (LTER). Twenty-six research sites constitute a 

loosely integrated LTER network at present. The network includes a wide range of 

ecosystem types spanning broad ranges of environmental conditions and human 

domination of the landscape. The geographic distribution of sites ranges from 

Alaska to Antarctica and from the Caribbean to French Polynesia, and includes 

agricultural lands, alpine tundra, barrier islands, coastal lagoons, cold and hot 

deserts, coral reefs, estuaries, forests, freshwater wetlands, grasslands, kelp forests, 

lakes, open ocean, savannas, streams, and urban landscapes. 
64

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

The budget and focus of NEON and LTER are very different than what can 

be expected of the EFR network. NEON and LTER are concentrated at a relatively few strategically located sites, and the data collection efforts are broadly 

focused. The EFR network of sites could provide information on the considerable variability around these sites, greatly enhancing the scope of inference 

and facilitating the application of research results at a scale appropriate to land 

managers. On the other end of the spectrum are data collection efforts that are 

extensive (i.e., many and widely distributed) but have a narrow, limited focus. 

For example, the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program reports on status 

and trends in forested area and location; in the species, size, and health of trees; 

in total tree growth, mortality, and removals by harvest; in wood production and 

utilization rates by various products; and in forest land ownership. A combination of remotely sensed data collected for thousands of points across the United 

States combined with field plots taken at a subset of these points provides 

annual inventory data on the condition of our forests. These data can be used for 

a variety of analytical purposes, but are limited to some basic forest composition and structure data and thus limited in what questions can be addressed 

with them. Another example is the U.S. Geological Survey daily stream gauge 

values. Over 25,000 sites across the country have daily flow records for representing the daily mean, median, maximum, minimum, and other derived values 

regarding streamflow. Again this represents extensive raw data that can be used 

to analyze a variety of streamflow questions, but it is limited by the narrow 

scope of the data.

The EFR network occupies a niche that is somewhere between these two ends 

of the spectrum. EFRs can augment existing efforts. The 20 NEON domains do not 

cover enough geography to represent all ecological systems. EFRs also augment 

existing monitoring networks such as the National Atmospheric Deposition Program sites (NADP) by not only having monitoring locations, but having the distinct 

advantage of having such specific measurements collocated with baseline environmental measurements, such as stream water chemistry. This is a huge benefit to 

these existing partner networks. 

We are not aiming to address the kinds of questions and obtain the level of 

funding support to which the NEON and LTER programs aspire. However, there 

is a suite of important environmental challenges and questions that are well suited 

to what can be accomplished with relatively modest investments and with the 

kinds of facilities and landscapes on which we are working. Chapter 4 presents a 

set of choices that include both ongoing research and monitoring activities as well 
65

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

as a noteworthy array of possible new initiatives for which a network of EFRs 

could be employed.

There is a lot of natural resource information being gathered, but someone has to 

understand the forest management questions and translate the emerging complexity 

of data into answers that land and resource managers can put into application. Forest 

Service R&D is best situated to accomplish this. Through the expertise and focus 

of R&D scientists and staff, combined with our proven ability to work with other 

research organizations, we are best positioned to serve the needs of the Forest Service and many other organizations that are responsible for managing land through 

well documented, credible science. 

Priorities and Expectations

The existing and emerging environmental challenges facing humanity require a 

research focus capable of addressing complexity at the scales of time and space 

in which the problems are rooted (Lugo et al. 2006). The research that traditionally entails studies focused on individual sites and local research objectives will 

continue to be a priority for all EFRs. The successes of the EFR system have been 

founded on these efforts and will continue to be a mainstay of R&D. Here we forecast a body of work that will take increasing advantage of networks of sites across 

broad temporal and geographic environmental gradients. Lugo et al. (2006) summarized the characteristics of the EFR network that could facilitate future broad scale 

research efforts. These characteristics should be familiar and are well documented 

in earlier sections of this report:

• Long-term records of climate, vegetation, streamflow, and wildlife populations

• Archival records, knowledgeable staff, collections, and other information 

sources that collectively document the long-term history of these places and 

ecosystems

• Extensive geographic and ecological coverage in the United States and the 

Caribbean

• Close relations with a land management organization, the National Forest 

System, whose staff can help implement large-scale experiments and carry 

out land management operations, inform the science community of information needs, and test the use of the latest scientific findings

• The presence both of areas open to experimental manipulation and of control areas on most properties

• Long-term (multi-decade), large-scale manipulative experiments

• A cadre of dedicated federal scientists and technical staff
66

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

• A land base formally designated for research and in operation for many 

decades reflecting an institutional commitment

• Inclusion within other research and monitoring networks, which adds to the 

information base on the sites and their regional and global contexts

• Education and public outreach programs that contribute to the two-way 

flow of information between the technical community and the public

• A commitment to keeping the network in the public domain, which means 

that it is open to the public and that collaboration with academia and other 

research organizations is encouraged and realized.

Lugo et al. (2006) cited several barriers that hinder progress toward the goal of 

developing an integrated national network of research sites. These include:

• A limited history of network research

• Chronic underfunding of research infrastructure and data management 

• Difficulties in accessing data from independent site files

• An absence of funding mechanisms for network research, and 

• Mistrust of manipulative research at large scales. 

They correctly acknowledge that these impediments are significant and 

cannot be ignored but further maintain that they are not insurmountable. The 

public depends on professional research and land management institutions 

like the Forest Service to forge solutions that will assure that future research 

activity at networked sites is as effective in addressing current and emerging 

challenges as past research at individual sites was in solving earlier resource 

management problems. Overcoming these barriers will require cooperation 

and collaboration both within the Forest Service and with external partners 

and constituents.

The existing assemblage of experimental forests and ranges, albeit cobbled 

from 80 individual sites, has all the makings of a model for development of longterm ecological and environmental observatories and as a prospective player in 

future networks. Chapters 4 and 5 provide a roadmap for accomplishing this.

Managing and Exploiting EFR Facilities and Information Assets

Managing our information assets—

Many EFRs have not implemented modern management for their information 

assets and suffer from lost or compromised paper records and isolated storage of 

electronic records. This poses a challenge to the EFR network and Forest Service 

R&D. Regardless of the level of scientific questions addressed by EFRs, improved 

management of these assets is critical to EFR network success and relevance in 
67

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

the 21st century. This section describes these key EFR information assets (table 9). 

Chapter 4 discusses how to extract the untapped value of these assets; it provides 

assurance that there is a way forward to obtain the benefits described below. Later 

in this report we discuss options for organizing an improved data management 

infrastructure for the network.

Historical research data—

There are few substitutes, if any, for the data collected by EFRs over the past 100 

years. They continue to be relevant for supporting their original research purpose, 

but as we have seen with the use of weather series for climate change research, data 

re-use is not always linked to the original collection purpose. Historical data also 

provide context for understanding results from new research on the site. 

Some data sets are available in modern digital formats; however, many data 

sets are still stored on paper in file cabinets. EFR principal scientists believe that 

the file cabinets hold a rich and unique lode of content to mine. This view is supported by occasional forays into these data by both Forest Service and external 

scientists. Also buttressing this view is the positive response received by scientists at EFRs who have made research data available online. However, knowledge 

of file cabinet and old media contents are imprecise and these historical studies 

lack the necessary documentation, or metadata, required to be fully useful.

Table 9—Summary of potential value of information assets

Asset type

Research data

Asset value description Historical Modern Administrative data Web presence

Enhances productivity and research impact X X

Facilitates new science via re-use X X

Adds credibility to research articles X

Adds value and richness to future research X X

Provides educational tools at multiple levels X X X

Facilitates cross-site research X X X X

Increased partnering opportunities X X

Improves site management X X

Provides historical context for EFRs X X

Marketing for FS R&D, EFRs, and Network X X X X

Ancillary benefits for FS R&D X X X

FS R&D = Forest Service Research and Development.

EFRs = experimental forests and ranges.

Many EFR principal 

scientists believe that 

data sets stored in file 

cabinets hold a rich 

and unique lode of 

content to mine.
68

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

As the recent report to the Chief of the Forest Service on temperature trends 

on EFRs exemplifies, if historical research data were available across all EFRs, 

there would be significant opportunities for cross-site synthesis research. Such 

research would be simplified if the data were available without having to rely on 

the goodwill and time availability of very limited (or nonexistent) local EFR staffs 

to assemble and organize the needed data for each project. Instead, synthesis work 

could simply access and then cite the available data products.

Modern research data—

Few modern projects performed by FS or external researchers on EFR sites have 

data management plans or resources to hire information managers and provide for 

information system development. Thus, over time, these data are at risk of becoming as inaccessible as current historical data sets—locked in obsolete formats and 

lacking the documentation needed to understand how to use them.

EFR sites are also starting to deal with the very large quantities of data produced by modern sensor equipment. Effective management of these data streams 

will require more advanced data management systems and practices, as sites like 

Silas Little can attest based on North American Carbon Program work. 

Administrative data —

EFR administrative data form an important, if underutilized, collection of content 

that includes:

i. Research-oriented data—maps of the EFR site and information, including spatial extent, about past and current studies. These data are not 

project-specific; rather, they broadly support site research and site management (e.g., reporting to hosting landowners).

ii. Operations-oriented data—how to run the site, lessons learned for processes like National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses and 

national forest permit processes, etc.

iii. General administrative—correspondence, establishment reports, etc.

Knowing where studies have been conducted can be important for establishing new studies. For example, the Hawaii Experimental Tropical Forest has used 

knowledge of past study locations to help scientists rule out sites that would not be 

appropriate for a new research project because of the effects of past research there.

Sharing lessons learned across time (staff changes) and space (EFR sites) can 

improve facilities management and conduct of administrative activities. For example, an organized site history can also be useful when infrequent activities need to be 

performed. From a network perspective, lessons learned by one site can be useful to 

another site dealing with a similar situation, preventing frustration or bad decisions. 
69

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Web presence—

The public Web presence is how we market EFRs and their accomplishments to 

the public and to scientists who might conduct research on our sites. The collective 

value of information available on a Web site, from both EFRs and FS R&D, should 

not be underestimated. The current collection of websites is broadly variable in 

visual style, uneven in terms of both quality and quantity of content, and does not 

cohere as a network. Overall, the sites do not deliver on their potential. 

The internal Web presence is a tool for communication among EFRs that has 

been underutilized. This is beginning to change, as the EFR Coordinator and the 

eResearch EFR project manager work to create a SharePoint site that could increase 

user access and availability of key information.

Chapter 4 provides more detail on how to extract the value from the main asset 

types; addresses how to obtain value from a sub-type of asset that the network currently has very little of (i.e., cross-site research data); and discusses how investing 

in EFR data management yields benefits to the rest of FS R&D.

Managing Our Facilities Assets

Forest Service R&D has a significant challenge in maintaining a functional physical 

infrastructure to serve the needs of a research organization. The aging assets we 

have across the country combined with evolving needs and technological changes 

clearly suggest that we are sorely in need of “Facilities Master Planning.” Such 

planning would help develop near-term recommendations and priorities that are 

essential to achieving the intended long-term goals and objectives of the R&D 

mission. It would also influence, and shape the forecasted development, disposal, 

major alteration, and renovation needs essential to supporting the EFR network’s 

immediate and long-term goals. 

The primary problem is that most of our facilities were constructed in the 1950s 

and 1960s and are worn out. There are insufficient resources to maintain them let 

alone upgrade them to current standards. Many of our facilities were constructed 

when R&D had a much larger workforce and some of those facilities are no longer 

needed. Other facilities are critical to achieving our mission and require maintenance and reconstruction. 

Forest Service R&D leadership needs a strategy for the care and feeding of 

these facilities. To say that we can maintain all of them to an acceptable standard is 

not realistic. An additional problem is the disposition of some of our buildings that 

are recognized as historical. Some should be repaired or restored, whereas others 

should perhaps be disposed of. We currently do not have a clear vision of how we 

should approach these infrastructure challenges.
70

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935
71

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

The considerable successes of EFRs are well documented in the scientific literature. But we have to ask: how do we support this enterprise and continue these 

successes? There is still robust energy and scientific output at many of our EFR 

sites and there are significant opportunities to enhance the productivity that 

both individual sites and especially the network could achieve. What does Forest 

Service R&D leadership need to do to support continued value from these sites? 

We must keep in mind that past accomplishments at a given EFR have typically 

been a result of the entrepreneurial efforts by one or a few individuals. Once these 

individuals move on, sites have often languished, especially those not receiving 

outside institutional support such as LTER sites. As a collection of individual sites 

there is no institutional structure that provides the glue of a network. Although 

this did not impede the success of individual EFRs, at least when a given site 

benefited from the energy of an enthusiastic research scientist, this model will not 

serve the objectives of a research or monitoring network going forward.

Broad Approach to Achieveing Objectives

We describe here a vision of what is possible with a functional network of EFRs 

distributed across the country. A fully functional and integrated EFR network 

can have the capability to effectively address scientific questions concerning the 

implications that are relevant to policy and management of emerging, large-scale 

environmental issues on the nation’s forest and grassland ecosystems. The network 

can accomplish this goal by building working relationships among scientists doing 

research throughout the EFR network. The foundation of the network can be a 

culture of cooperation that encourages, facilitates, and rewards EFR scientists 

working together. EFR scientists can have a strong community that fosters mutual 

trust and facilitates interactions among EFR sites and their programs of research. 

For example, the EFR network can enhance cross-site interactions by sponsoring 

network-wide events similar to those of the LTER network. The EFR network 

can hold periodic EFR all-scientists meetings to build community by serving as a 

forum for collaboration on topics of major interest to scientists, and serve as a seedbed for multi-site research projects. Gatherings of EFR scientists can also include, 

when appropriate, non-Forest Service cooperating scientists and EFR network science users including representatives of the policy and management communities. 

EFR sites and their research programs can have the scientific capacity to be a 

critical mass capable of participating at a high level in major EFR network science 

topics. Not all EFR sites can have full capability on all topics, but together, subsets 

of sites can have the capacity to address national-scale questions related to vegetation dynamics, biogeochemistry, or hydrology. 

Chapter 4: Strategy for Moving EFRs Forward

As a collection of 

individual sites, there 

is no institutional 

structure that provides 

the glue of a network. 

This did not impede the 

success of individual 

EFRs when a given 

site benefited from 

the energy of an 

enthusiastic research 

scientist, but this 

model will not serve 

the objectives of a 

research or monitoring 

network going forward.
72

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

The network can provide selected services that enhance science programs 

throughout the network. Common protocols can be established for environmental 

data collection and documentation. Information sharing capacity can be developed 

that enables scientists to build upon science done across the entire network and 

can be readily shared with the larger scientific community and the public. EFRs 

can participate in research networks managed by other institutions, such as LTER, 

NEON, and NADP, which can extend the reach and inferences of findings from 

EFRs and share lessons learned about networking processes. Dedicated administration and leadership can be in place to support network science with an appropriate mix of top-down and bottom-up approaches. Funding and resources for 

network science can be sufficient to provide a reliable and merit-based process to 

sustain a significant level of cross-site science to address major, large-scale issues 

for forests and rangelands. 

Current Situation and Challenges 

The foregoing discussions illustrate that we have serious challenges to optimizing the value of our EFR network. Going from current conditions to the vision 

set forth above will require a significant commitment. A brief summary of these 

challenges include:

Support for data collection—

It is a constant and increasingly difficult struggle to sustain important long-term 

research initiatives or initiate new research or monitoring at even the most highprofile of our EFRs. Shrinking budgets and loss of capacity through attrition is 

clearly decreasing our capacity to sustain, let alone expand, research and monitoring data collection. Lest we forget, this is the lifeblood of this organization.

Support for data management—

We have enormous challenges related to managing our data resources. There is 

a significant backlog of data requiring attention. This crucial aspect of the EFR 

program is in need of resources to bolster our capacity. Without meaningful attention to this issue, we stand to lose or never archive substantial amounts of the raw 

data that we know are very important to our mission.

Support for synthesis—

Although many individual researchers have been collecting and publishing their 

data at sites for decades, collaborations across the EFR network are fairly new. 

Cross-site syntheses of existing data are beginning to occur. Having syntheses 

conducted collaboratively by those who have familiarity with sites is important, 

in part to help promote EFRs, but more importantly because of the nuances of 
73

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

interpreting the data. Some of the most interesting research with the highest impact 

results comes from synthetic evaluations of our data. Multiple efforts are underway, 

for example:

• Sherri Johnson (PNW), Chuck Rhoades (RMRS), and Steven Sebestyen 

(NRS) are leading the stream chemistry synthesis and ChemDB group.

• Lindsey Rustad (NRS) and Jim Vose (SRS) are leading the analysis of longterm climate data collected on EFRs.

• AmeriFlux is a network of sites that provide continuous observations of 

exchanges of carbon dioxide, water and energy. These sites also provide 

detailed environmental data (air and soil temperatures, precipitation, solar 

radiation, soil moisture) as well as ecological measurements including forest leaf area index and foliage nutrient content. 

• NADP sites, collecting data on precipitation chemistry, began operations 

in 1978 with the goal of providing data on the amounts, trends, and geographic distributions of acids, nutrients, and base cations in precipitation.

• The USA National Phenology Network brings together scientists, federal, 

state, and local agencies, nonprofit groups, and educators and students to 

monitor the impacts of climate change on the phenology of plants, animals, 

and landscapes in the United States. 

• LTSP research focuses on the joint role of soil porosity and site organic 

matter and their effect on the site processes that control productivity.

Identifying and Promoting Our Competitive Advantages

Earlier in this report we addressed what is distinctive and unique about EFRs. 

These features provide particular competitive advantages for the network of EFRs 

in certain key areas compared with other ecological research institutions. Elaborating on this list we can further make the case for how EFR work stands out: 

• EFRs were established through formal congressional authorities provided 

to the Chief of the Forest Service and are designated for research as their 

primary purpose. Generations of researchers can count on these locations 

being there in the long term. With rare exceptions (for small localities), 

other agencies and universities do not have any such facilities.

• Data have been collected on these sites for decades, in many instances 

for up to 100 years. These data provide a wealth of information from 

which new studies can draw. Very few other research sites have this 

length of data record on stable sites. The value of long-term data with 

known land use history is becoming increasingly important to the 

research community.
74

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

• Many data collection efforts are co-located with other data collection 

efforts, enabling analysis of attribute changes in one measurement of one 

factor with changes in ecosystem structure and function.

• Long-term research is feasible and enabled. Universities do not have access 

to any particular location for more than generally 5 to 10 years with the 

exception of some small locations such as natural reserves or a limited 

number of experimental sites.

• Manipulative field studies, testing management ideas, are encouraged. Most 

field sites used for ecological research are largely limited to observational 

research, which does not permit land disturbance. Research that requires 

long-term study of management alternative such as forest treatments cannot be done on virtually any other research sites, university, or other state 

(natural reserves, state parks) or federal sites (e.g., National Park Service or 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands).

• New studies, complementing and conterminous with existing studies, are 

feasible and enabled. New researchers have distinct advantages when they 

can draw upon other background data sets and site characteristics to complement new research initiatives. Many research sites can claim this advantage; few have the depth and breadth of data like EFRs.

• Both basic and applied research activities are encouraged and enabled. 

EFRs were established to enable research to address management problems. 

All EFRs have a strong legacy of applied research covering many years. 

Most also have a variety of basic research investigation which provide 

important scientific insights which add important value to the overall mission of each EFR.

• The cooperation and collaboration with the land and resource management community is a key foundation of all EFRs. Land and resource 

managers are typically involved both in articulating the research and 

monitoring questions as well as enabling the execution of the work 

through a variety of logistical support activities. No other network of 

research sites has this direct connection between the research and management community.

• There is significant value for both the management community and the 

public to have an opportunity to obtain a firsthand view in the field. Many 

EFR sites provide demonstration plots or stands to illustrate the results of 

research findings for educational purposes. Few other research sites have 

the capacity to provide a research-results demonstration site that managers 

can visit and learn from.
75

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

• Field research has many logistical challenges. Sites are generally far from 

communities of researchers and productivity is directly proportional to the 

ability of research staffs to access and get around a site. Logistical support 

(housing, meeting rooms, laboratories, data, maps, etc.) is available at many 

EFRs. Some other research sites have these capabilities but they are mostly 

limited. Many EFRs have excellent logistical support. 

The basic infrastructure of the EFR network, providing for the array of advantages described above, is partly in place. Some improvements are needed and these 

are addressed in the next chapter. However, the 100-plus years of investments 

represented by the current network would be next to impossible to put in place 

today. The significant advantages of the EFR network for addressing our strengths 

in field research and monitoring are abundantly clear.

Evaluating Our Current EFRs: Criteria for EFR Tiers

The Forest Service is aware of the range of conditions and uses found on our EFRs 

across the country. Each of these locations has a different history of research and 

monitoring activities; different levels of investment in scientific instrumentation, 

research facilities, and other infrastructure; and varying levels of support from collaborators. That these exceptional sites have unique histories is not a condemnation 

of the inherent value that each has for R&D on its own or as part of a larger EFR 

network, but simply recognition of the varying conditions that developed over time.

As we move forward with plans to identify our research and monitoring 

opportunities across a network of official and cooperating EFRs, we will be 

forced to consider priorities for future investments. It will be to our advantage to 

provide some criteria for positioning our portfolio of EFRs for what we believe is 

needed to maximize the science and monitoring that we can execute across such 

a network. Having relevant and measurable criteria for evaluating the current and 

future potential of our EFRs can benefit the full network of EFRs in two ways: 

(1) to identify common minimum levels of infrastructure that should be shared 

by EFRs (e.g., a modern meteorological station with comparable data), and (2) to 

identify assets necessary to be part of a network so that the value of science and 

monitoring efforts can be maximized across a network of EFRs. Below, we offer 

some criteria for placing each EFR into one of four categories, or tiers, that will 

signify what we can expect from them and, in turn, what we should be investing 

in them. 

Clearly these conditions can change, and targeted activities and investments 

can make that happen. Here, we mean to inform leadership and the participants in 

the EFR network of the current range of options and opportunities that each EFR 

The 100-plus years 

of investments 

represented by the 

current network would 

be next to impossible 

to put in place today. 

The significant 

advantages of the EFR 

network for addressing 

our strengths in 

field research and 

monitoring are 

abundantly clear.
76

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

offers. As we further develop scientific questions and determine how the network 

will be able to serve those questions, we will make case-by-case decisions on which 

EFRs will be involved in any given research or monitoring activity.

The following criteria provide a measure of the current activity and production 

of each EFR. Collectively, these metrics will give us a means for classifying EFRs 

and placing each into the appropriate tier. We suggest that each criterion could be 

assigned a qualitative value such as high, medium, or low and that some of these 

criteria could be weighted to reflect a higher level of importance relative to others. 

• Scientific merit and activity—Number of research studies, demonstrations, and monitoring activities ongoing. 

• Partnerships—Ability to leverage research funding and involvement from 

participants from collaborating agencies, research institutions, nongovernmental organizations, or other potential partners

• Available scientific infrastructure—Number and quality of scientific 

instrumentation that will support independent research activities such as 

meteorological stations, stream gauges, permanent plots, etc. 

• Site facilities and management—Includes management viewpoint institutional cooperation, organizational structure and decisionmaking, logistical 

support and communication. Logistical support and communication involves 

lodging, housing, office space, T1 line/digital subscriber line/telephone 

ground line, wireless phone access, coverage by FS radio network, etc.

• Research products generated at EFR—Count of refereed and nonrefereed 

publications that have provided knowledge on ecological function, composition, and structure; list of demonstrations, field tours, videos, and other 

science delivery products.

• Local to regional applications—Are research results from a given EFR 

being applied in the local area or region? Do these results provide a model 

for managers to adopt and apply to their local management challenges?

• Cross-site, regional, and international activities—How much activity at 

the site is devoted to working with other EFRs or other comparable field sites, 

regional/continental/international collaborations on research or monitoring 

questions, and general collaboration with scientists from other institutions?

• Access—Road network, trails, administrative support tools such as GIS, 

maintenance of access infrastructure, clear boundaries recently surveyed.

• Data management—Past data collected at the site are available, with metadata and digital formats for use by other researchers. Includes performance 

in information systems, metadata development, quality control systems, 

administrative interface, website, system administration, and data access.
77

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

• What is the quality of the data sets at the site? Are they useful for other 

researchers or for networking with other sites?

• Ecological importance—Is the EFR located in an ecological province 

(Bailey Ecoregions) that has no other representation (or is underrepresented)?

• Education and outreach activities—Number and scope of activities that 

contribute to education and outreach across the spectrum, from K-12 to university to public and technical transfer of scientific findings to management 

and policy makers.

• Support from national forest (or other host)—Does the facility enjoy 

support by the host institution for law enforcement, NEPA preparation, road 

maintenance, and other necessities for project implementation and day-today operations?

• How far is the EFR site from a staffed location?

• How much staffing (scientist time, support staff time, etc.) is assigned

to an EFR?

• What are the major research topics studied at each EFR (e.g., wildlife, 

silviculture, hydrology, carbon budgets, etc.). How long have they been 

under study? How do the primary areas of research fit within/contribute to 

a network context?

Collectively these criteria can help guide where we put our limited investments 

in the future. Some EFRs will clearly rise to the top as places where we can observe 

the benefits of continued support. Others will reflect the need to consider whether 

R&D should continue to support the site, for likely obvious reasons. 

Tier 1. Model EFRs that have excelled in scientific accomplishment and promise 

to do so into the future. They score highly in all ranking criteria; staff is in residence; work center/office space is in good condition; lodging exists for researchers and visitors; basic instrumentation is modern and operational; good access to 

Internet and phone networks; many active research studies on site and linked to 

other sites.

Tier 2. EFRs with notable past and present accomplishments, and plans for future 

research and monitoring activities. These sites score highly in more than half of the 

ranking criteria and provide current promise for improving in all. 

Tier 3. EFRs with notable past accomplishments, and promise for future research 

or monitoring activities. Current activities are minimal or none. No one is located 

at the site, mothballed buildings exist, utilities are not active, and only primitive rest 

room facilities are available. 

Collectively, these 

criteria can help guide 

where we put our 

limited investments in 

the future. Some EFRs 

will clearly rise to the 

top as places where 

we can observe the 

benefits of continued 

support. Others will 

reflect the need to 

consider whether R&D 

should continue to 

support the site. 
78

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Tier 4. EFRs with no notable activity for many years and no plans for future activity. No one is on site; no buildings for work or lodging are on site; no Internet service; difficult access. Essentially, the EFR is in caretaker status.

Addressing availability of limited funding for EFRs is a difficult but necessary 

step. We have to be objective and careful as we examine the full roster of EFRs 

and determine how we administer them in the future. The intent of these tiers is to 

characterize the current or anticipated status of each EFR and provide some guidance regarding investments for the near term. Inevitably, some of the EFRs will 

logically be placed in Tier 4 and essentially be mothballed for the time being or, in 

some cases, even dis-established. This does not mean that we would not attempt to 

gather the historical data from these sites and archive them, as deemed necessary, 

as we intend to for all 80 EFRs. It is merely recognition of the reality of current 

circumstances and the pragmatic management decisions that we will face. As 

circumstances change, the rating of any one of these EFRs can be reevaluated and 

adjusted accordingly.

Networking and Marketing

Many of the long-term monitoring and research studies, including stream gauging of small streams and watershed-based research are distinctive to the Forest 

Service and could benefit from increased “branding.” This is appropriate for 

a number of reasons, including the fact that recognition of these contributions 

and the conscious linkage and credit to Forest Service R&D could translate into 

increased resources needed for maintaining these long-term data records and 

for post-doctoral researchers and others to help with synthesis efforts. Other 

national networks do not have such a foundation of land and facilities to build 

on. The Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) program, known for long-term 

studies, has built on the investment of the Forest Service for the longest term 

data collections at its shared sites. NEON has only begun to collect data and is 

decades away from having comparable record diversity and duration. If we are 

to enhance our position within the scientific community and the connection to 

management relevance, it is essential that we sustain this body of work. 

For many decades agencies like Forest Service R&D were provided a reasonable budget and simply expected to fulfill their mission. There was relatively little 

public scrutiny and the reputation of the organization was sustained through quality 

publications and long-term productivity. So much has changed in the last two to 

three decades. We now find ourselves in a very different socioeconomic arena in 

which we must tap into new skills and abilities. We must be able to effectively 

communicate the value and practical application of the science we produce. No 
79

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

longer can we rely upon passive, unstructured practices of managing our work. This 

includes developing more structured approaches to record collecting, managing 

data properly (Quality Assessment/Quality Control, archiving), and making the 

data publicly accessible. 

Identifying and Working With Partners

We long ago reached a point at which it was clear that an organization like Forest 

Service R&D, with an asset like the EFR network, could not meet its aspirations 

by working alone. There is a range of partners and collaborators who are essential 

to the success of the mission embodied in the EFR network. First and foremost 

is the relationship with the NFS and the many people, from the district level to 

the Washington Office, who both enable much of the work and use the results. 

Most EFRs are designated within national forests (62) and depend on a variety of 

services and cooperation from the districts, forests, and regions that hosts these 

sites. Furthermore, the wide array of research or monitoring conducted on EFRs 

has direct or indirect implications for land management. Cooperation with the 

NFS is crucial to the success of the EFR network. Swanson et al. (2010) provided 

useful guidance on effective research-management collaboration at long-term 

environmental research sites. Fundamentally, it depends on mutual understanding 

and respect, a shared commitment to the land base, interest in learning, a common 

program of work, and a spirit of partnership. The many examples of good collaboration associated with long-term research sites serve as models for what can occur 

more widely (Swanson et al. 2010).

We also have the tremendously important relationship with our research partners. 

Our most successful and productive EFRs are those with a strong and visible collaboration with one or more universities. These partnerships allow leveraging of limited 

resources, share in defining the research agenda, assist in obtaining research funding, 

aid in developing the facilities which are ultimately shared by all parties, administer 

the activities on the site, and manage the scientific and logistic resources that support 

the research and monitoring. Examples include the H.J. Andrews EF (Oregon State 

University), Hubbard Brook EF (Dartmouth University, Cornell University, others), 

Sagehen EF (University of California–Berkeley), etc. Partnerships offer enormous 

advantages and opportunities to achieve much more with fewer resources. 

There is also a broad community of those who value and use the scientific 

findings that are derived from EFRs (see the section on the community of interest 

on EFRs for details). Support to operate these EFRs comes largely internally and 

from our partners in research and management. However, we also have examples 

of external support from organizations like the Rocky Mountain Research 

Long ago it became 

clear that an 

organization like 

Forest Service R&D, 

with an asset like 

the EFR network, 

could not meet 

its aspirations by 

working alone. A 

range of partners 

and collaborators 

is essential to the 

success of the 

mission embodied in 

the EFR network.
80

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Foundation (at Starkey EFR) and the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation (at the 

Hubbard Brook EF). With the expansion of research initiatives and growing interest in initiatives such as climate change monitoring and research, we can see these 

partnerships with beneficiaries of our research products growing.

We are seeing more and more examples of what we can accomplish through 

collaborations than we can individually. It will be a significant priority of this 

program to continue to nurture and build new collaborations and sources of support 

that can be associated with our overall EFR network.

Education and Outreach Opportunities 

Over the 100 years of activities on EFRs there has been tremendous achievement 

by the large number of students, particularly graduate students who do their graduate research on EFRs. Forest Service R&D has collaborated with universities over 

the decades to include students on these research sites and to take advantage of the 

many opportunities EFRs present.

Education and outreach activities were not an explicit purpose of the EFR network 

or any of the individual EFRs when each was established. Times have changed, and the 

last two to three decades have brought a tremendous increase of public interest in how 

forest ecosystems are structured and how wildlands are managed in this country. Many 

kinds of interest groups have emerged; people have become much more informed about 

the complex issues of land management. There is also a growing demand to enable 

educational/informational exchanges between researchers and professionals in the land/

resource management community and local public officials. We are also seeing growth 

in international collaborations and opportunities to exchange expertise. 

This has introduced a new and now potentially important element to the mission of EFRs. However, this also presents a new, unfunded duty for most EFRs, one 

that is largely impossible for many. This opportunity is something that will have to 

be developed as the capabilities emerge through partnerships and other dedications 

of interest, both internal and external.

Nonetheless, the opportunities are almost endless and the potential reward is 

significant, both for the external benefits that education and information can provide 

to a broader audience as well as internal benefits of recognition for all the accomplishments at EFRs. A sample of some of the existing and effective educational and 

outreach activities at EFRs include:

Sagehen Experimental Forest—

Sagehen EF hosts workshops and courses like Geomorphic and Ecological Fundamentals for River and Stream Restoration and public events like the Summer 

Science Speaker Series. Online media includes the Sagehen News blog, Sagehen 

Education and 

outreach activities 

were not an explicit 

purpose of the EFR 

network or any 

individual EFR when 

each was established. 

But the last two to 

three decades have 

brought a tremendous 

increase of public 

interest in how forest 

ecosystems are 

structured and how 

wildlands are managed.
81

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

TV videos, podcasts and a Sagehen Forest Project blog. Other outreach and education programs or events include:

• Adventure-Risk-Challenge program held at Sagehen Creek Field Station, 

the Sedgewick Reserve and Yosemite National Park. 

• The Highway-89 Stewardship Team Transportation Ecology Outreach Program. 

• K-12 programs for local and state-wide school kids. 

• Fish Cam (a web cam for the fish house to observe wild fish behavior).

• Hosting the University of California—Davis Graduate Group in Ecology’s 

new graduate student “Odyssey.” http://ecology.ucdavis.edu/news_events/

odyssey.html

Coweeta Hydrologic Lab—

Coweeta LTER scientists and staff provide middle school, high school, and 

community college students “hands-on” field and laboratory research experience. The Schoolyard Initiative has been funded since the 1998–1999 school 

year by an annual supplemental grant from the National Science Foundation 

to the core Coweeta LTER grant. The purpose of the Schoolyard Program is 

to formally provide instruction, field research, and data summary and analysis 

experiences to K-12 students and instructors using Coweeta LTER research 

projects as an example. 

The program coordinated by researchers at Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory 

includes students from Mountain View Intermediate School, Macon Middle School, 

and Macon Early College in Franklin, NC, as well as students from Rabun Gap–

Nacoochee School in Rabun County, GA.

H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest—

In collaboration with the LTER program on the site, the H.J. Andrews EF has 

numerous and varied education and outreach programs and activities geared toward 

K-12 students and teachers, visiting scholars, undergraduates and graduate students, 

Forest Service and other natural resource professionals, and the general public. The 

following list is just a small sample of the offerings: 

• Research Experience for Teachers (RET)

• Outdoor School, McKenzie School District

• Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU)

• Andrews LTER Graduate Student Research Awards

• Environmental Leadership Program, University of Oregon

• Undergraduate/graduate classes and courses

• Post-doctoral trainees

• Field workshops and tours
82

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

• Visiting Scholars Program

• Workshops and tours organized by Central Cascades Adaptive Management 

Program (CCAMP)

• Oregon State University Extension and Outreach Partnerships

• Interpretive trails for the public

Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest—

The Hubbard Brook Research Foundation (HBRF) and the Forest Service have 

joined efforts to develop a Research Experiences for Teachers in the Experimental 

Forests (RET-EF) program. The primary aim of the RET-EF program is to provide 

K-12 science teachers with sustained, hands-on experience in environmental science research. Additionally, the RET-EF program supports participating scientists 

by providing them with summer research assistance and, at the same time, a 

mechanism to extend the broader impacts of their work. The RET-EF program aims 

to improve public awareness of environmental science research and the role of the 

USDA experimental forests. 

Clearly, education and outreach can be an extremely useful and relevant part 

of the EFR mission. With limitations in available resources to support the core 

research mission of the EFR network it is likely that the support and encouragement 

by Forest Service R&D leaders be largely from in-kind resources. Nonetheless, 

we stand to reap significant benefits from including education and outreach as an 

integral component of EFR activities.

Addressing the Status of Our Facilities Assets 

Given the need to take a comprehensive look at the condition of and needs of our 

facilities it would serve Forest Service R&D well to form a national team to assess 

the EFR facilities. The kinds of issues that need attention include:

• What is the purpose for the site? Internal research only, collaboration, education, conference center, etc.? 

• Are we duplicating the same types of research facilities in multiple locations? Is there sound reasoning for this?

• Should we put emphasis on developing a few, state-of-the-art conference 

centers such as H.J. Andrews and Bent Creek and not try to develop those 

types of facilities at multiple locations?

• Are there obsolete buildings on the site that should be removed or changed 

to another use?

• What is our use of the site? Is it only occasional use or regular and 

needed use? Should we be spending limited funds on sites that have very 

little usefulness?
83

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

• Should we be building new facilities when we have old ones in disrepair?

• Are some EFR facilities that were purposeful 50 years ago still relevant today?

These are tough questions for many reasons, but a comprehensive evaluation 

of our complete inventory of facilities assets is necessary to make smart decisions. 

From the results of such an assessment, through a complete Facilities Master Plan 

for EFRs, we will have the information needed to make informed decisions about 

this crucial and largely neglected concern.

Safety Considerations 

No Forest Service strategy should go forward without addressing safety concerns 

for our employees. The work we do on experimental forests and ranges often 

takes us to remote places where we contend with obstacles and risks of all kinds. 

The innumerable safety concerns that come with field work are taken seriously 

by everyone. Numerous precautions have been devised to help our employees 

avoid accidents, as have procedures for responding to them, including job hazard 

analyses for field activities, emergency evacuation plans, safety and first aid training, and tailgate sessions to provide reminders (most especially to our relatively 

inexperienced seasonal work force) of the hazards one is likely to encounter on 

any given day. These practices have become part of Forest Service culture and will 

remain in place.

Development of new innovations to improve the safety of our work environment (both field and office) will continue to be a priority. We continue to have more 

opportunities to devise better procedures. One area where we stand to both improve 

the quality of the science we do as well as reduce exposure to hazardous conditions 

is through technological innovations. The development of a “virtual experimental 

forest” at many of our experimental sites could have a profound impact on lessening 

our environmental impact and, at the same time, increasing safety. By minimizing 

the person-hours driving to sites and traversing difficult terrain to access study 

areas, and reducing the need to provide access roads, we decrease impacts on soils 

and water, and reduce disruption of wildlife. By limiting the need for frequent onthe-ground field trips we reduce hazards to field crews. Much of the field sampling 

conducted in EFRs, especially under hazardous conditions such as during storms, is 

wasteful and potentially dangerous. Routinely visiting unconnected instrumentation 

sites to verify that they are functioning properly and download data is inefficient 

and is hit or miss from the standpoint of data quality. 

New technology has emerged that enables deployment of sophisticated data 

collection equipment and the networking of those instruments to create more 

effective and more efficient research and monitoring tactics. Clearly these measures 

The work we do on 

experimental forests 

and ranges often take 

us to remote places 

where we contend 

with obstacles and 

risks of all kinds. The 

innumerable safety 

concerns that come 

with field work are 

taken seriously by 

everyone.
84

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

will also reduce exposure to potentially dangerous conditions and result in a safer 

environment for our employees. As the EFR network moves forward, special 

attention can be given to developing these sensor networks at all EFRs where it is 

affordable and feasible.

Relationship to the Greater Forest Service Inventory Monitoring 

and Assessment Program

The framework for the new planning rule process consists of a three-part cycle: 

assessment, plan revision or amendment, and monitoring. These phases of the 

planning process are complementary, and intended to allow the Forest Service to 

adapt management to changing conditions and to improve plans with more frequent 

amendments based on new information and monitoring. The planning process 

would require developing an understanding of the landscape-scale context for unitlevel management. Assessments, in particular, are designed to create an understanding of conditions, trends, and stressors both on and off NFS lands to guide the 

development of plans to manage resources on the unit. 

The planning rule also creates a two-tiered strategy for monitoring at the unit 

level and at a broader scale. Monitoring is a central part of both plan content and the 

planning process, allowing responsible officials to test assumptions, track changing 

conditions, measure management implementation and effectiveness in achieving 

desired outcomes, and feed new information back into the planning cycle so that 

plans and management can be changed as needed. 

With the increased emphasis on executing a scientifically credible inventory, 

monitoring, and assessment program, including targeted efforts at a landscape 

scale, there is a clear nexus with what a network of EFRs can offer. Close coordination between R&D and the NFS as this program is put into operation will clearly 

improve the reliability of efforts related to the planning rule. We can reduce redundancy, realize savings, improve scientific robustness, and make more efficient use 

of our limited staffing.

Data Archiving and Sharing

Data that extend over long periods of time can greatly enhance the value to EFRs 

in addressing new questions or long-term trends. But to be valuable beyond those 

who are intimately involved in their collection, these data need to be archived and 

well documented with standardized metadata descriptions. Archives will be most 

effective if they extend beyond hardcopy or digital storage by individual scientists; this could include centralized servers or academic and interagency partnerships. This challenge and the direction we hope to go in is discussed subsequently 

in Chapter 5.
85

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

One of the most difficult and awkward issues in research, particularly for a 

federal agency funded by public tax dollars, is procedures for sharing data. Data 

collected using appropriated funds is part of the public domain. At what stage of the 

data collection process should and can data be made available to other interested 

parties? What kinds of data should be shared? What is the responsible approach to 

making data available?

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), for example, has a policy for support 

of the concept of data sharing. Their position is that data sharing is essential for 

expedited translation of research results into knowledge, products, and procedures 

to improve human health. The NIH endorses the sharing of final research data to 

serve these and other important scientific goals. The NIH expects and supports 

the timely release and sharing of final research data from NIH-supported studies 

for use by other researchers. The NIH requires a data-sharing plan as part of the 

grant writing plan. 

Data and metadata can be shared through multiple venues, and scientists at 

EFRs have developed a range of methods and protocols. Some sites designate specific data as core data and make it publicly available as digital files over the Web, 

often through research partners, as soon as possible after collection. Core data often 

include hydrologic or climatic parameters that are used by many researchers at the 

site and beyond. Some sites do not have partners that can provide access to servers 

and the Web. Shared harvester sites have been developed (such as Hydro/ClimDB, 

an integrated database of basic streamflow and weather data that pools information 

from cooperating sites throughout the country) that allow these sites to submit some 

types of data for sharing and dissemination on the Web. Data that are not collected 

digitally often have much longer lags before distribution, or exist only as hardcopy.

Tracking use and interpretation of data is challenging once it is available on 

the Web. Most EFRs scientists ask that the research group or agency be acknowledged if the data are used in a publication, but follow-through on acknowledgments is spotty. Data that are not available on the Web can often be obtained by 

contacting the researcher at a site. However, it can be challenging to know what 

types of data are collected or available as well as to identify who to contact for 

various types of data. Some EFRs managers request proposals about potential 

use of data before releasing it. This allows site researchers to become involved in 

analysis and interpretation of the data and often to be co-authors or acknowledged 

in publications that may result. Other sites have protocols ensuring that once the 

data are published the data can then be released.

Depending on the EFR and type of data, shared data can be provisional with 

very limited quality control or checking, while in other situations, data are subjected 
86

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

to rigorous quality assessment/quality control (QAQC) before being released. Data 

sharing through the Web or through individual contact both require scientists to 

take extra steps to make the data understandable by others, similar to those taken to 

archiving data for long-term use. However, these steps are generally not recognized 

as essential or “rewarded” in scientific circles unless a publication results. Some 

journals and scientific societies are encouraging dissemination and archiving of data 

by attributing a citation to “published” datasets.

This issue is part of the bigger challenge of data management, addressed below, 

and is directly related to staff capacity and our ability to process and check increasingly large volumes of data. Not all data can or should be considered “high” quality 

for any particular use. What is important is that the quality be documented. Plans 

for addressing information management will include this issue.

Information Management: Strategies for Moving Forward

Management of information and data is a challenging issue; it is both mundane 

and crucially important. This is part of a complete issue with broader ramifications for policy and procedures for how federal agencies maximize the quality, 

objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by federal agencies. Our EFRs have substantial information assets of significant untapped value. 

To make that value available, EFRs need a more effective information management (IM) infrastructure. There are many ways to design such an infrastructure. 

Four approaches that span the spectrum of options are: (1) fully decentralized; 

(2) fully decentralized but with central coordination; (3) partially decentralized 

but with substantial central coordination and support; and (4) fully centralized. 

Approach 1: Fully Decentralized 

All IM activities are handled by the individual site’s staff; so each site has at least 

one information manager. The information manager is responsible for research 

data, administrative data, and Web content. The work includes deciding what 

activities are appropriate and what standards, if any, are used. This is the approach 

that has been used for most of the history of EFRs, except that many sites do not 

have a formal information manager. 

Approach 2: Fully Decentralized With Central Coordination

All IM activities are handled by the site’s staff, so each site has at least one information manager. The activities that staffs engage in and how the activities are 

executed are partially determined by a central coordinating group. The central 
87

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

group also sets standards and provides training. Implementation of standards is left 

up to the local units. This is the approach used by the LTER network, with the central coordinating group role being filled by the LTER Network Office. For example, 

the LTER Network Office sets IM standards, but each of the 26 sites implements the 

standards independently.

Approach 3: Partially Decentralized With Substantial Central 

Coordination and Support

IM activities are handled in a hybrid manner. Some sites have information managers—when local resources and interest support such a position. A central coordinating group sets standards and provides training, but also supports and coordinates 

implementation of information management strategies. Candidates for central group 

support include:

• Cross-site and multi-investigator studies

• Site-based support for EFRs that cannot support a local information manager

• Temporary site-based support for sites with an information manager when 

dealing with spikes in demand or when the manager is on leave 

• Projects that are long-term for the network, but short-term for a given site; 

for example, converting sometimes fragile paper documents into modern 

digital formats

• Network-level websites

• Common applications or components across EFR websites

The central group, which may be geographically dispersed, does much of its work by 

creating, deploying, and maintaining IT systems that assist site scientists, technicians, 

and administrative staff in their work. In addition to IT tasks, the central group might 

house a science writer to create content for both the network and local site Web pages.

Approach 4: Fully Centralized

All IM management activities are handled by a central group; this group may be 

geographically dispersed. There are still data technicians at the sites collecting data 

and transferring to the central systems, and potentially assisting in writing/maintaining metadata to reflect changes in field data acquisition techniques.

The current norm across the EFR network is a mix of Approach 1 (this continues to be the primary system) and Approach 3 (for activities managed by the 

eResearch EFR IM project or by the Data Archive). However, because most sites do 

not currently have dedicated information managers as does the LTER, the quality of 

IM tends to be relatively undeveloped.
88

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, and each might be 

the most appropriate type to deploy—depending on overall objectives. For 

example, Approach 1 places a high premium on local control; its disadvantages 

are a lack of consistency across the collection of sites and a relatively high cost. 

Approach 2 trades some local control for increased cross-site consistency; the 

deployment cost remains relatively high owing to the need to have an information manager at every active site. It is also a relatively cumbersome system 

for cross-site research, particularly if budgetary constraints do not permit 

stationing an information manager at every site participating in the research. 

It works very well for LTER because of NSF funding for full-time information 

managers and because there is relatively little cross-site research performed 

(in part because of the variety of ecosystems represented—polar to prairie). 

It also seems to be an effective way to balance goals when working across the 

many institutions that house LTER sites. Approach 4 places a high premium 

on consistency of practice and will tend to be very efficient and effective; its 

primary disadvantages are a tendency toward rigidity, creation of a single locus 

of failure, and a distancing of IM from the people for whom the information is 

being managed.

Approach 3 can be structured in at least two styles. The “hierarchical” style 

uses strong partitioning of responsibilities between the central group and the 

site-based group. The “team” style uses a looser partitioning, wherein the central 

group does its work and the site-based group participates in that work on a less 

than full-time basis. A key to success for the latter approach is to set it up such 

that the work done by site-based people in association with the central group is not 

considered to be collateral duty. Rather, it is part of their normal responsibilities. 

The team style captures most of the advantages of Approach 4, without being as 

brittle. The resilience flows from the site-based group being able to keep systems 

running if the central group becomes dysfunctional, and vice versa. The systems 

don’t run as well in those two situations; the idea is to have the systems run well 

enough to survive while the dysfunction is being identified and addressed. Either 

structure helps to keep IM systems better anchored to the needs of the scientists 

and technicians who rely on them.
89

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Other Business Management Considerations

Based on an analysis by the University of California–Davis Graduate School for 

Management, conducted in 2011, some independent observations offer ideas for 

potential improvements. Administration of EFRs is not strictly a business proposition; however, there are some business management insights from this analysis that 

Forest Service R&D leaders should evaluate.

First, consider establishing a cost unit at the research station level to capture all 

costs related to EFRs, including research activities and operational and administrative functions. The cost data could be useful for each EFR for the following: 

• Inventory accountability: Each EFR should maintain a list of equipment 

and facilities with values assessed in accordance with R&D valuation methodology, and with projected annual maintenance and replacement costs. 

• Budget planning: This is necessary for maintenance of equipment and 

facilities, and possible expansion of the EFR’s existing structure.

• Performance measurement: Tracking of research activities conducted at 

each EFR will provide management insights into its performance. 

In addition, it would be useful to have a clear classification of funding sources, 

whether from the federal government or outside entities such as universities. Currently, external funding for equipment and facilities is roughly estimated or unaccounted. With detailed information of funding sources and amounts, we can better 

account for inventories and determine the level of partnership cultivation needed 

for each EFR. 

Furthermore, to capture accurate cost data, plan budgets, and evaluate performance measures, it would be useful for each research station, in conjunction 

with national guidance, to provide consistent business management operations and 

oversight. Led by national guidance, as we have seen executed by the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, research station-level business managers would 

help implement revenue and cost structure to the entire EFR network. The research 

station business managers could also work with on-site managers to implement 

these strategies and work with them to improve EFR efficiency and performance on 

an operational level. 
90

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935
91

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Chapter 5: Strategic Path Alternatives for EFRs 

Previous chapters provided a foundation for the purpose and need for an EFR network and a framework for considering how R&D might best use its 80 EFRs. This 

chapter condenses the spectrum of possible strategic uses into six major alternative 

paths for the future of these critical assets. These paths are each described using 

eight characteristics of a successful experimental network. No matter which path is 

chosen, each starts from current conditions. Inevitably it will take time to reorient 

to whatever new trajectory that is followed and to make specific tactical decisions 

that will begin to move it forward. Note that an optimal path may blend two or more 

of the alternative paths. Once a strategic path is chosen, follow-up planning will 

flesh out implementation details. The amount and type of planning will depend on 

the path chosen.

Each primary path has a very rough cost estimate. We have not developed these 

ideas sufficiently to have more precise cost estimates, and project planning experience reminds us that estimates are likely to change. Nonetheless, they do provide 

reasonable qualitative guidance on the relative cost of achieving different EFR 

research outcomes and benefits.

The eight common characteristics for each potential path are:

• Science: What kinds of scientific challenges, both current and future, are 

we able and best situated to address utilizing our EFRs?

• Portfolio: What course we will take for expansion, contraction, status quo, 

or selective focus of the ecological representativeness of our EFRs?

• Infrastructure: What course we will take for expansion, contraction, status quo, or selective focus for EFR building and research infrastructure?

• Data management: How will we archive our legacy data, manage our 

collection of data in the future, and effect data standardization for crosssite analyses?

• Personnel: What kinds of new or different positions will be required to 

fuel and support current and new activities?

• Organization: What is the most effective overall organization for EFRs, 

both nationally and at the station level (i.e., staffing, leadership and direction, investment strategies, etc.)?

• Partnerships: To what extent and how do we intend to attract, engage, and 

interact with partners?

• Outreach: How do we engage in outreach, technology transfer, and education? How do we cultivate a support community to bolster the recognition 

and value of this enterprise?
92

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Once direction is given—based on this strategic plan and the following descriptions 

of alternative paths—finer details can be developed. It is recommended that a team, 

consisting of a national coordinator, leadership, and scientists, be formed to develop a 

detailed work plan for implementing the selected direction. 

The optional paths are titled (1) Limited Capacity, (2) Status Quo Plus, (3) 

Experimentation Network, (4) Synthesis Network, (5) R&D Core Research Platform, 

and (6) Experimental Ranger Districts. These paths are summarized in table 10. 

Table 10—Summary of consequences of the six paths

Path Consequences

Path 1—Limited Capacity:

Implications for science Science will continue to be organized solely at the local level, with crosssite studies continuing to have little or no corporate support

Implications for the EFR portfolio Each station director will determine what to continue to support, all others 

will be mothballed

Implications for the building infrastructure Focus will be on periodic, strategically selected maintenance needs, meted 

out to facilities on an as-needed basis

Implications for data management This path relies on the national Research Data Archive to coordinate 

and manage a slow migration of historical EFRs research data out of 

file cabinets and create the necessary Web infrastructure for EFR data 

delivery; $250,000

Implications for personnel/workforce No new positions will be identified or filled

Implications for the Forest Service 

organization

The organization will remain as is, with each research station director 

managing the station EFRs as they choose

Implications for partnerships Individual EFRs and station leaders determine how to allocate resources for 

existing or new partnerships 

Implications for outreach Individual EFRs and station leaders determine how to allocate resources for 

existing or new outreach opportunities

Total estimated cost (additional dollars) $250,000 

Path 2—Status Quo Plus: 

Implications for science No new projects, slow decline in existing projects

Implications for the EFR portfolio No new EFRs, mothball 20 percent of existing

Implications for the building infrastructure Many existing facilities are in serious disrepair and thus some work is 

needed simply to avoid loss of assets. The national focus will be on 

periodic, strategically selected maintenance needs; $ 1,000,000

Implications for data management There is a need to minimally equip EFRs for the demands of modern 

research data management; $600,000

Implications for personnel/workforce No new personnel, replace one of every two losses

Implications for the Forest Service 

organization Fully decentralized, all decisions and guidance from stations

Implications for partnerships Support existing, no efforts to build more

Implications for outreach Minimal support

Total estimated cost (additional dollars) $1,600,000 
93

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Path Consequences

Path 3—EFRs as an Experimentation Network:

Implications for science Most science will continue to be organized solely at the local level, 

addressing local/regional issues; however, a limited number of short- and 

long-term, cross-site studies will be actively encouraged via a national 

competitive proposal process; $1,500,000

Implications for the EFR portfolio Establishing new EFRs remains primarily a station director’s decision; 

however, there may be some changes to facilitate effective cross-site 

research. A careful review of the 80 EFRs will be performed to determine 

the current status of each based on the tier system

Implications for the building infrastructure The national focus for the next 5 to 10 years will be on periodic, 

strategically selected maintenance needs, meted out to facilities on an asneeded basis; $1,500,000

Implications for data management Improve data management for all Tier 1 and Tier 2 EFRs to handle research 

and administrative data; support new data management needs for a limited 

number of strategic cross-site research projects as needed; $1,000,000

Implications for personnel/workforce Five new data managers, five new technicians, $500,000 (in addition to data 

management needs); replace as people leave

Implications for the Forest Service 

organization

Fully decentralized, all decisions and guidance from station directors; 

national coordinator will chair the cross-site competitive proposal process 

and coordinate other national-level activities and support

Implications for partnerships Support existing, no efforts to build more

Implications for outreach Minimal support, encourage existing efforts of individuals and partners

Total estimated cost (additional dollars) $4,500,000 

Path 4—EFRs as a Synthesis Network:

Implications for science Concerted effort to build the network; pursue the current set of networked 

research and monitoring activities; solidify existing efforts; develop 

selected new initiatives; pursue the “Smart Forest” initiative, costs covered 

in other categories (personnel, data management), one-time costs for new 

equipment estimated at $3,500,000

Implications for the EFR portfolio Identify options for new EFRs. “New” EFRs can take four forms: (1) 

standard EFR establishment; (2) expand or reconfigure an existing EFR 

to add ecosystems or scale; (3) “reboot” a Tier 3 or Tier 4 EFR to active 

status; or (4) establish a Cooperative EFR

Implications for the building infrastructure R&D engineer, in collaboration with station directors and station engineers, 

will develop a maintenance priority list for all facilities and develop a 

queue and schedule; $2,000,000

Implications for data management Work with four teams: the science team, the research data team, the 

administrative team, and a team of teams—the network team. Pair 

with modern information technology systems to achieve the objectives; 

$2,000,000

Implications for Personnel/workforce Establish new positions in data managers (see item 4), field technicians at 

research stations (10), network office technicians (3), field site managers (5), 

and outreach; $2,500,000

Table 10—Summary of consequences of the six paths (continued)
94

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Path Consequences

Implications for the Forest Service 

organization

Develop a national organization that provides national guidance, execution 

of work at the station and EFR level, and promotes networked research 

and monitoring addressing the key scientific and management questions of 

today and tomorrow 

Implications for partnerships Actively support existing partnerships, aggressively pursue new partnerships

Implications for outreach Develop and active, participatory effort in outreach and education, support 

local activities; $200,000

Total estimated cost (additional dollars) $10,200,000 

Notes This cost includes a one-time cost of $500,000 for new equipment purchases

Path 5—EFRs as R&D’s Core Research Platform: 

Implications for science EFR network becomes the focal point of the Forest Service R&D 

organization. R&D research and monitoring activities focus on what 

new initiatives can be pursued using the EFR network as the test bed for 

questions and management strategies; $3,500,000

Implications for the EFR portfolio Efforts will begin to establish up to five new EFRs, as needed, within 

the next 3 years; also seek to identify potential partnerships with other 

institutions to designate up to five new “Cooperating Experimental Forests” 

in strategic locations; $100,000

Implications for the building infrastructure Maintenance needs will be assessed for all EFRs in the network. A 

schedule for the next 5 years will be developed to address the backlog of 

maintenance needs; provide recommendations for new facility initiatives 

for EFRs, as needed; $3,000,000

Implications for data management Strong level of IM support for Tier 1 and 2 EFRs; aggressively convert all 

historical data into digital formats; enable the network to pursue Grand 

Challenge-scale research using historical and modern data; make EFRs a 

compelling proposition for hosting external research; $7,000,000

Implications for personnel/workforce Additions of staff described in Path 4 are included plus up to 10 additional 

research grade-scientists with the explicit assignment to develop research 

and monitoring projects in affiliation with a given EFR; $4,000,000

Implications for the Forest Service 

organization

Essentially as Path 4, a small national office would oversee the operations 

of the network, day-to-day activities would continue to be executed by the 

respective research stations.

Implications for partnerships We will aggressively seek and support partnerships for collaborations on 

existing and future EFRs; seek and encourage strategic additions to the 

EFR network through use of the provision for “Cooperating Experimental 

Forests and Ranges;” $500,000

Implications for outreach Provide active support for an array of outreach and education activities 

through six new positions, five at the research stations and one in the 

national coordinator office; $1,000,000

Total estimated cost (additional dollars) $19,100,000 

Notes This cost includes a one-time cost of $500,000 for new equipment purchases

Table 10—Summary of consequences of the six paths (continued)
95

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Path Consequences

Path 6—Experimental Ranger Districts:

Implications for science With a particular emphasis on selected EFRs on ranger districts, there 

will need to be a shift of resources to support these efforts; research 

and monitoring ideas and initiatives will be developed collaboratively; 

$3,500,000

Implications for the EFR portfolio Strategic additions to the network will be explored. Initially we will seek to 

identify one suitable ranger district per region that has a functional EFR on 

it to serve as the hub for expanded activities; $100,000

Implications for the building infrastructure Maintenance needs will be assessed for all EFRs in the network. A 

schedule for the next 5 years will be developed to address the backlog of 

maintenance needs; provide recommendations for new facility initiatives 

for EFRs, as needed; $3,000,000

Implications for data management Strong level of IM support for Tier 1 and 2 EFRs; aggressively convert all 

historical data into digital formats; enable the network to pursue Grand 

Challenge-scale research using historical and modern data; make EFRs a 

compelling proposition for hosting external research; $7,000,000

Implications for personnel/workforce In addition to carrying forward ideas from Path 4 and 5, personnel from 

the selected ranger districts will be collaborating on the full array of 

duties to execute this path. They will remain, of course, as National Forest 

System (NFS) staff and will not affect the personnel needs of this path. 

Collaboration with ranger districts and forests will be the approach for 

development of new research or monitoring initiatives; $2,500,000

Implications for the Forest Service 

organization

Oversight and direction will be similar to Path 4 and 5 with the significant 

addition of NFS staff at all levels

Implications for partnerships On this path, the emphasis is on expanded experimental areas within 

national forests and addressing issues of common interest with the NFS. We 

will continue to support partnerships with universities and other research 

institutions for collaborations on EFRs; $350,000

Implications for outreach Provide active support for an array of outreach and education activities 

through six new positions, five at the research stations and one in the 

national coordinator office; $1,000,000

Total estimated cost (additional dollars) $17,450,000 

Notes Does not include costs and other requirements for the ranger districts to 

become integrated into this approach

Table 10—Summary of consequences of the six paths (continued)
96

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Path 1: Limited Capacity 

This path is essentially the current situation and keeps the EFRs as an unevenly 

resourced informal network. It reflects a choice to maintain current priorities within 

the Forest Service. Thus, for the immediate future, few additional national resources 

are assigned to the EFR system. A key expectation of this path is that, over time, 

additional EFR sites are highly likely to slide into the Tier 3 and Tier 4 levels.

Science 

Science will continue to be organized solely at the local level, with cross-site 

studies continuing to have little or no corporate support. Work will continue to be 

conducted by current field staff and supported by existing resources. Some initiatives will likely cease over time as staff availability diminishes, equipment deteriorates, and overall capabilities decline. Many current initiatives will be fueled by ad 

hoc efforts without targeted budgets. Some of these projects will drop out over time. 

Science direction will continue to be determined by the priorities and efforts of 

individual scientists and by station managers based on the needs of their clients. 

Projected annual costs over current: $0

Portfolio 

Establishment of new EFRs will be rare and will only occur if a station chooses 

to make the investment. A number of existing EFRs will be, by default, put in a 

“Tier 4” status, which essentially means indefinite “mothballing” where no work is 

accomplished and all facilities are shut down. Each station will determine what can 

continue to be supported; all others will be mothballed. Some may be identified for 

removal from the system, as determined by the lead research station.

Projected annual costs over current: $0

Infrastructure 

Individual stations will determine whether to invest in new construction. The national 

focus will be on periodic, strategically selected maintenance needs, meted out to 

facilities on an as-needed basis. The R&D Engineer, collaborating with station directors and station engineers, will develop a maintenance priority list for all facilities and 

develop a queue and schedule. Some facilities will be identified for demolition. 

Projected annual costs over current: $0

Data Management 

Even without targeted initiatives there will be requirements for a greater investment 

to meet modern research data management requirements. Therefore, this path relies 
97

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

on the national Research Data Archive to coordinate and manage a slow migration 

of historical EFR research data out of file cabinets and create the necessary Web 

infrastructure for EFR data delivery. The archive is also interested in making the 

movement of new research data from scientists’ desktops to the archive system 

as smoothly as possible. To that end, EFRs will be significant participants in the 

archive’s broader efforts to create tools and processes to improve R&D’s management of research data during the course of large and long-term studies.

Projected annual costs over current: $250,000 

Personnel

No new positions will be identified or filled. Decisions on whether to replace people as 

they leave will be made by station directors based on local resource constraints. Over 

time, this process can be expected to result in mothballing of some currently active sites.

Projected annual costs over current: $0

Organization

The organization will remain as is, with each research station managing the EFRs 

in its area as chosen.

Projected annual costs over current: $0

Partnerships

Individual EFR managers and station directors will determine how to allocate 

resources for partnerships, existing or new.

Projected annual costs over current: $0

Outreach

Individual EFR managers and station directors will determine how to allocate 

resources for outreach opportunities, existing or new.

Projected annual costs over current: $0

TOTAL annual national costs: $250,000

Anticipated Consequences of Path 1 

This path concedes the likelihood of a static or declining budget and acknowledges 

that no concerted effort will be made to support or further build an EFR network. 

Some EFR initiatives will continue as station directors and individual EFR managers choose and are able to sustain those efforts. Most EFR activities will decline 

and some will drop out of the portfolio of Forest Service R&D over time. Historical 

data will continue to deteriorate and much will be lost. Opportunities to harvest the 

scientific values of an EFR network will be limited. 
98

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Path 2: Status Quo Plus

This path also keeps the EFRs as an unevenly resourced informal network. However, it retains and slightly augments the work currently being done to address critical infrastructure maintenance needs and create a somewhat more robust network 

infrastructure. Although budgets are declining and costs are increasing, limited 

investment to bolster certain facets of the network is determined to be prudent for 

R&D and the Forest Service as a whole. Key areas for support include selected 

facility upgrades, data management improvements, and support for selected existing networked activities that are currently supported only by ad hoc efforts at 

individual EFRs. For the foreseeable future this path will require little to no additional resources to be dedicated to the EFR network. A key expectation is that, over 

time, additional EFR sites are highly likely to slide into Tier 3 and Tier 4 levels. 

However, while still in Tier 1 or Tier 2 status, a site will be better resourced to manage its information, and R&D will be better positioned to preserve its accumulated 

knowledge of the site.

Science

Science will continue to be organized solely at the local level, with cross-site studies continuing to have little or no formal corporate support. Work will continue to 

be conducted by current field staff and supported by existing resources. We will 

endeavor to sustain all productive and in-demand ongoing activities; however, 

some initiatives may cease over time as staff availability diminishes, equipment 

deteriorates, and overall capabilities decline. Strategic discussions will reveal 

which ongoing initiatives require more stable, long-term support. A review of these 

ongoing activities will carefully consider which activities R&D should sustain as 

part of the national research and monitoring program of the EFR network. We will 

acknowledge an EFR network, albeit modest and limited in scope. 

Projected annual costs over current: $0

Portfolio

New EFRs will be established only if a station director chooses to make the investment. A careful review of the 80 EFRs will be performed to determine the current 

status of each based on the tier system described above. Research station directors 

will assign the appropriate tier for each of their EFRs. Some sites may be identified 

for disestablishment, as determined by the lead research station director. This will 

enable a focus on those EFRs that are active and currently performing, thus prioritizing future investments.

Projected annual costs over current: $0
99

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Infrastructure 

Individual station directors will determine whether to invest in new construction. Many existing facilities are in need of repair and thus some work is needed 

simply to avoid loss of assets. The national focus will be on periodic, strategically 

selected maintenance needs, meted out to facilities on an as-needed basis. The R&D 

Engineer, collaborating with station directors and station engineers, will develop 

a maintenance priority list for all facilities as well as a queue and schedule. Some 

facilities will be identified for demolition. 

Projected annual costs over current: $1,000,000

Data Management

As in Path 1, there is a need to equip EFRs for the demands of modern research 

data management. Even this austere path requires a greater investment in data 

management than has historically been made to meet current demands and 

expectations of the scientific community and public. Thus, the five national 

investments will be:

• Periodic migration of historical research data from file cabinets and creation of the necessary Web delivery infrastructure, managed by the 

research data archivist

• Develop/maintain a data management capability for each Tier 1 and Tier 2 site

• Develop/maintain shared research management/administration tools

• Develop/maintain an internal SharePoint site for collaboration and knowledge sharing, facilitating the use of the network as a loose support structure

• Update all EFR websites to reflect the new network information architecture; use data availability to market the EFR research platform

Projected annual costs over current: $600,000

Personnel

Existing staff associated with EFRs will continue to do their current work, as 

directed by their station director. In general, when people leave through retirement 

or take other jobs, some positions will be refilled; others not. Responsibilities of 

the vacant position will be redistributed among remaining staff, potentially at other 

locations, or dropped from the job description. No new positions will be identified 

or filled. Decisions on whether to replace people as they leave will be made by 

station directors based on local resource constraints. Over time, this process can be 

expected to result in mothballing some currently active sites.

Projected annual costs over current: $0
100

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Organization

The organization will remain as is, with each research station managing the EFRs 

in their area as it chooses.

Projected annual costs over current: $0

Partnerships 

Individual EFR managers and station directors will determine how to allocate 

resources for partnerships, existing or new.

Projected annual costs over current: $0

Outreach

Individual EFR managers and station directors will determine how to allocate 

resources for outreach opportunities, existing or new.

Projected annual costs over current: $0

TOTAL annual national costs: $1,600,000

Anticipated Consequences of Path 2

This path acknowledges value in our array of EFRs and attempts to capitalize 

on these opportunities with modest support of existing resources and minimal 

additional investments. It will be hard to maintain all existing EFR network initiatives. Over time, some will have to be dropped. Some historical data will be lost. 

Strategic decisions will attempt to retain our most productive and useful activities. 

No new initiatives will be possible and thus strategic scientific opportunities that 

could be addressed through a network of field sites will be forgone. We will rely 

on the high performing EFRs and their ancillary sources of support to further the 

potential of individual EFRs. The EFR network will be largely unrealized. The 

Forest Service will turn to other facets of the R&D program as its primary source 

of noteworthy accomplishments. 

Path 3: EFRs As an Experimentation Network

This path seeks the research value expected from shifting from an informal network to an experimentation network. Choosing this path affirms that cross-site 

(i.e., larger scale) research is critical to addressing the land management problems 

of the 21st century, and that the potential and value of a functional network of EFRs 

is to handle these challenges. Allocating the additional resources required by this 

path would ensure relevant and high-impact research. Key areas for support include 

selected facilities upgrading, data management improvements, and support for 

selected existing networked activities that are currently supported only by ad hoc 
101

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

efforts at individual EFRs. In the short-term this will involve additional resources 

dedicated to operating an EFR network and the research and monitoring activities 

that the network is uniquely positioned to address. Some resource reallocation is 

likely as the cross-site proposal process is instituted and funded.

Science

Most science will continue to be organized solely at the local level, addressing 

local/regional issues; however, a limited number of short- and long-term cross-site 

studies and monitoring activities will be encouraged via a national competitive 

proposal process. Work will continue to be conducted by current field staff and 

supported by existing resources. Strategic discussions will reveal which ongoing 

initiatives require more stable, long-term support. We will endeavor to sustain all 

productive and in-demand ongoing activities; however, some local initiatives may 

cease over time as staff availability diminishes, equipment deteriorates, and overall 

capabilities decline. A review of these ongoing activities will carefully consider 

which activities R&D leaders should sustain as part of the corporate research and 

monitoring programs. 

Projected annual costs over current: $1,500,000

Portfolio

Establishing new EFRs remains primarily a station director’s decision; however, the 

EFR network may also propose changes to facilitate effective cross-site research. 

A careful review of the 80 EFRs will be performed to determine the current status 

of each based on the tier system described above. Research stations will assign the 

appropriate tier for each of their EFRs. This will enable a focus on those EFRs that 

are active and currently performing, thus prioritizing future investments.

Projected annual costs over current: $0

Infrastructure

The national focus for the next 5 to 10 years will be on periodic, strategically 

selected maintenance needs, meted out to facilities on an as-needed basis. The R&D 

engineer, collaborating with station directors and station engineers, will develop a 

maintenance priority list for all facilities, and will develop a queue and schedule. 

Some facilities will be identified for demolition. After the backlog of maintenance 

issues is addressed, the focus will turn to strategic investments in new facilities. 

Such investments will be rare and carefully considered. Elimination of facilities 

that are not needed will be considered first.

Projected annual costs over current: $1,500,000
102

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Data Management

The objectives are: 

• Update all EFR websites to reflect the new network information architecture; use data availability to market the EFR research platform

• Improve data management for all Tier 1 and Tier 2 EFRs to handle research 

and administrative data

• Support new data management needs for a limited number of strategic 

cross-site research projects as needed

• Create data-oriented marketing pitch for researchers to use EFRs 

• National investments: 

▪ Aggressive effort to make historical research data available on the Web

▪ Develop/maintain a data management capability for Tier 1 and 2 sites

▪ Develop/maintain shared research management/administrative tools

▪ Develop/maintain an internal SharePoint site for collaboration and 

knowledge sharing, facilitating the use of the network as a loose 

support structure

▪ Update all EFR websites to reflect the new network information architecture; use data availability to market the EFR research platform

▪ Provide national-level data management support for cross-site studies, 

as needed.

Projected annual costs over current: $1,000,000

Personnel

A very limited number of new positions will be filled, solely for data management 

improvements. A small number (five estimated ) of data management specialists 

will be added to provide national support (probably housed with a core group 

supporting EFRs nationally, see “Data Management” above). An additional five 

technicians will be added to cover shortfalls in technical support of existing efforts 

that are expected to emerge as critical ad hoc support of important network monitoring or research activities from personnel at field sites inevitably abates. Existing 

scientists, technicians, site managers, and administrative staff will continue to do 

their current work.

Projected annual costs over current: $500,000 plus investments described in 

“Data Management” section.
103

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Organization

For local research not considered to be strategic at a national scale for R&D, the organization will remain essentially as is. The national coordinator position will be supported 

as a part of the national support network. The coordinator will chair the cross-site 

competitive proposal process and coordinate other national-level activities and support. 

Projected annual costs over current: $200,000

Partnerships

Individual EFR managers and station directors will determine how to allocate 

resources for partnerships, existing or new. We will continue to endorse and support 

existing partnerships with existing resources and external funds. 

Projected annual costs over current: $0

Outreach

Individual EFR managers and station directors will determine how to allocate 

resources for outreach opportunities, existing or new. The efforts required to 

effectively achieve these objectives will continue to be done as ad hoc activities 

by Forest Service or non-Forest Service staff at EFRs based on their interest and 

capabilities. This is largely viewed as an ancillary task that is performed as time 

and interest permits. Under this option it will continue to be an opportunistic activity unless prioritized by a lead station.

Projected annual costs over current: $0

TOTAL annual national costs: $4,700,000

Anticipated Consequences of Path 3 

This path reflects limited investments that will focus on improving conditions in 

our ability to support ongoing work through adequate facilities and data management. Existing EFR activities will be sustained through existing mechanisms, 

largely through the efforts and decisions of each research station and with external 

funds. Some activities will likely be dropped over time as other priorities and 

inflation constrains capacity. A concerted effort to archive as much of our historical 

data as possible will be pursued. Strategic decisions are necessary to determine if 

limited new investments in scientific activities will be used to sustain projects over 

time or explore emerging new issues. There will be very limited capacity to pursue 

new high-priority research or monitoring initiatives that are particularly suited to a 

distributed network of field facilities if deemed important. The EFR network will 

meet a limited scope of expectations. 
104

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Path 4: EFRs As a Synthesis Network

This path is designed to provide meaningful support to existing EFR programs as 

well as to serve as the foundation of a well-coordinated EFR network. Key existing 

initiatives will be recognized and solidified and long-term provisions will be established to sustain these efforts. A limited number of new initiatives, considered by 

R&D leaders to be central to the mission of the organization, will be identified and 

initiated as part of the network. A formal network will be recognized and branded 

as a cornerstone of the R&D organization. Minimal central support for the network 

will be established to enable the EFRs to function as a network in an effective and 

reliable manner. As planning begins for the future, the recommendations contained 

herein will be built into the R&D budget.

Science

Under this path there will be a concerted effort to build the network. First, 

we will continue to pursue the current set of productive networked research 

and monitoring activities. Existing activities will be carefully evaluated and 

the core efforts will be confirmed. The requirements to stabilize and provide 

a solid foundation for the future will be determined. The majority of work 

will continue to be conducted by current field staff and supported by existing 

resources. Additional needs will be identified and those requirements will be 

supported by a combination of additional support to research stations and development of a core staff that provides support to all EFRs nationwide. Consistent 

applications for existing activities will be supported at the station level as well 

as through a central support office. Models for administration and support (e.g., 

FIA program and LTER network) will be examined and elements identified for 

adoption by EFRs.

A select number of new network-wide monitoring and research initiatives will 

be identified and efforts put in motion to begin a set of these. Table 8 includes an 

initial set of ideas collected from Forest Service scientists as well as NFS science 

specialists. Priorities will be established by the EFR science community with 

substantial input from stakeholders. Proposals to address the priority research areas 

will be solicited; a competitive evaluation process will select a limited number of 

new projects to fund nationally as network research. These efforts are intended to 

create a network research agenda that is relevant to land and resource managers and 

supported by robust experimentation on the ground.

Path 4 also includes a specific intention to pursue a “Smart Forest” initiative 

(see app. 1). Demand is growing for information about the physical and chemical environment of the natural systems that support the Nation’s forests and 

Demand is growing for 

information about the 

physical and chemical 

environment of the 

natural systems that 

support the Nation’s 

forests and ranges. 

Historically, the 

collection of these 

“baseline” data has 

been labor intensive 

and expensive, but 

recent advances in 

environmental sensor 

technology, wireless 

communications, and 

software have enabled 

the development of 

low-cost, low-power, 

multifunctional sensor 

networks that can 

communicate data to 

researchers, managers, 

and the public in near 

real time.
105

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

ranges. The collection of these “baseline” environmental data has historically 

been labor intensive and expensive. However, recent advances in environmental sensor technology, wireless communications, and software applications 

have enabled the development of low-cost, low-power, multifunctional sensor 

networks that can communicate environmentally sensed data to researchers, 

managers, and the public in near real time. When combined with plot-level data 

about forest structure, composition, and dynamics, these wireless sensor networks (WSNs) can provide information on unprecedented temporal and spatial 

scales, and offer new opportunities for research, monitoring, and environmental 

warning systems. 

The objective of the EFR “Smart Forest” initiative is to develop a strategic and 

cost-efficient approach to updating and modernizing environmental data collection 

and delivery tied to information about forest and range conditions at EFR sites 

across the country, effectively creating an integrated nationwide wireless sensor 

network to measure, monitor, and enable assessment of environmental change at the 

continental scale. Key components of this initiative must include:

• Provision of national-level data management support for cross-site studies, 

as needed

• Clear articulation of scientific and societal needs and questions for which 

baseline ecological and stand-level data are required

• Identification of specific data needed to address these questions

• Determination of spatial and temporal resolution needed to address these 

questions now and in the coming decades

• Evaluation of hardware and software needed to collect these data

• Determination of how to deliver data most effectively and efficiently from 

the field to the repository for storage and subsequent analysis

• Design of a system with maximum flexibility for expansion as new environmental concerns emerge and novel environmental sensors and measures 

of vegetation plot dynamics are developed. 

Success will depend on strategic selection of new initiatives, promoting the 

values garnered from these sites, and a sound investment strategy. Investments will 

include staffing, a network office, equipment, and data management. Equipment is 

addressed here (largely one-time costs); staffing, network office, and data management are addressed in other sections. 

Projected annual costs over current: 

• $3,000,000 science funding (for new initiatives)

• $500,000 one-time equipment cost (for the Smart Forest initiative)

The objective of 

the “Smart Forest” 

initiative is to develop 

a strategic and costefficient approach to 

modernizing collection 

and delivery of data 

about forest and 

range conditions 

at sites across the 

country, effectively 

creating an integrated 

nationwide wireless 

sensor network to 

measure, monitor, and 

enable assessment of 

environmental change 

at the continental scale.
106

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Portfolio

The 80 EFRs will be evaluated and assigned to appropriate tiers using the criteria 

contained in this document. Each station, in collaboration with a national team (e.g., 

the EFR Working Group) for EFRs, will conduct this evaluation. This information, 

plus an assessment of site needs for the priority research areas, will be used to 

identify options for decommissioning of obsolete sites and identification of potential 

new EFRs. “New” EFRs can take four forms: (1) standard EFR establishment; (2) 

expand or reconfigure an existing EFR to add ecosystems or scale; (3) “reboot” 

a Tier 3 or Tier 4 EFR to active status; or (4) establish a Cooperative EFR with 

interested parties.

Projected annual costs over current: $ contained in other categories.

Infrastructure

Periodic, strategically selected maintenance needs, meted out to facilities on an 

as- needed basis, will be addressed. The R&D engineer, in collaboration with station directors and station engineers, will develop a maintenance priority list for all 

facilities, and will develop a queue and schedule. Some facilities will be identified 

for demolition. Station directors will direct their engineers to provide recommendations for new facility initiatives for EFRs, as needed. These proposals will be given 

high priorities for the Choosing by Advantage (CBA) process for new facilities 

funding. Modernizing facilities on EFRS will be a priority for R&D. New facilities 

will be considered but will require compelling evidence.

Projected annual costs over current: $2,000,000 plus periodic new facilities 

projects through the CBA process.

Data Management

Objectives: (1) create a strong level of data management support for Tier 1 and 

2 EFRs to handle research and administrative data; (2) aggressively convert all 

historical data into digital formats that are preserved and shared via the R&D data 

archive; (3) enable the network to pursue Grand Challenge-scale research using 

historical and modern data, while retaining capability to engage in locally focused 

research; (4) make EFRs a compelling proposition for hosting external research.

The formation of a data management team for the entire EFR network will 

help to not only place importance on data collection, but also ensure an approach 

to research data management that is consistent across sites. The team will have 

four functions: (1) develop, maintain, and promote data management standards for 

the network; (2) develop data management tools for use by EFR staff (scientists, 
107

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

data managers, and site managers); (3) be the steward for data collection standards 

developed by the network; (4) provide direct data management support for sites that 

lack this capability (this encompasses back-up support for sites with data managers, 

e.g., for when the data manager is on leave). 

The organization of the team should follow the team style described for 

approach 3 in chapter 4, which is modeled by the national research data archive—

EFR-wide in scope, with staff embedded in the field using the national partner 

model in place for the data archive, eResearch, and the EFR coordinator. It is 

important that this team not lose touch with the EFR community’s needs; being in 

the field helps with that. Members of the team who are providing direct support to 

sites could be co-located with an EFR or be more virtual; they could be organized to 

be responsible for sites in a given geographical area, for sites with common support 

needs (e.g., relying on a geographic information system, doing hydrology, etc.), or 

some mix of these. Regardless of the organizational structure, it will be important 

for the team to maintain a broad view and understanding of EFRs data management 

needs, and not adopt a narrow view based on the subject matter or geographical area 

they happen to work with most intensely. Overall, how to organize the establishment 

of data management team members is a tactical decision that should be delegated 

to the EFR science community to work through with cross-station leadership (e.g., 

Assistant Director Team). The community will need to gain experience with group 

decisionmaking and this will be a good network component for such practice.

A related issue is how the EFR data management infrastructure will interact 

with the national research data archive. There is overlap in roles and requirements 

that could be leveraged to reduce overall data management costs to R&D (and the 

R&D data archive staff is excited about the idea of continuing to work closely with 

the EFR community). Or the EFR network could be afforded the same status as 

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA), handling internal and external aspects of its 

data management with minimal interaction with the archive. 

National investments:

• Historical data are migrated expeditiously and are available via the R&D Data 

Archive; this includes all data gathered by other investigators on each site

• Work to standardize data collection and reporting methods

• Create cross-site databases and cross-site data queries; support internal 

research products and public communication

• Develop/maintain a data management capability for Tier 1 and 2 sites by

▪ Providing national-level data management support for EFRs

▪ Developing shared research management/administrative tools
108

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

▪ Developing active Information Technology infrastructure support for 

data linkages with external networks such as HydroDB, Consortium of 

Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science (CUAHSI) for 

hydrology research, etc.

• Develop/maintain an internal SharePoint site for collaboration and knowledge sharing, helping to build and maintain the social network aspects of 

the network

• Update all EFR websites to reflect the new network information architecture; use data availability to market the EFR research platform

• Establish an EFR science board, analogous to the board used by LTER, to 

provide high-level oversight/direction for the data management team. 

Although all items on the investment list pertain to EFR information management, 

their execution could be distributed across a data management team and a Web 

team, or managed together as has been the case for the eResearch EFR project.

• Estimated staff increases: 16 (team leader, developers, database managers, 

Web content staff, and data managers)

• Projected annual costs over current: $2,000,000 (for current system of ≈40 

active sites; costs rise with more sites).

Personnel 

In this option there is a clear intent to increase the capacity of the EFR network 

through strategic selection of additional personnel. Critical needs for personnel 

include data management specialists (see above), field technicians, site managers, and the support of a national network organization. The data management 

requirements are covered above. Field technicians will include funding/staff 

assigned to each research station as well as a limited core staff from a national 

network office. The rationale is to provide trained expertise in the field to deploy 

and manage field equipment and provide scientist support for field monitoring 

and experiments. We also will have a small network office team with highly 

trained technicians and support staff to provide guidance and assistance to the 

entire network and the field staffs of all EFRs. This will promote consistency and 

efficiency in use of high-tech equipment and standardization of data collection 

protocols and equipment use.

Administering effective field sites requires diligent attention to myriad details. 

Most sites currently rely on scientists or scientific support staff to execute the painstaking details of site administration. Some additional staff will be allocated for this 

crucial task to both better execute the job of site management and relieve scientists 

and key support staff from these duties.
109

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

The few site managers we have currently exercise a lot of independence and, 

in effect, run their own small business operation. Although most if not all of these 

appear to be run exceptionally well, other EFRs may lack the same level of activity 

and most lack a site manager altogether.

An EFR-wide business development position will be established to help train 

and educate site managers on strategies for running an effective and successful 

EFR. By helping site managers create a list of metrics to evaluate their revenue, 

costs, assets, etc., site managers will be better equipped to run an efficient EFR. 

Existing scientists, technicians, site managers, and administrative staff will 

continue to do their current work. As people leave through retirement or to take 

other jobs, most positions will be refilled. Responsibilities of the vacated position 

will be redistributed amongst remaining staff or dropped from the job description.

Estimated staff increases:

• Data managers (see “Data Management” section)

• Field technicians at research stations: 10

• Network office technicians 3

• Field site managers at research stations 5

Projected annual costs over current: $2,500,000 (plus data management 

accounted separately).

Organization 

The current organization for EFRs is solely through each station director’s choice 

for organization and oversight of the EFRs. On this path there will be two key 

changes. First, a national organization of EFRs will be further developed to provide 

consistent and standardized management and procedures similar to the manner in 

which the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is currently administered. 

FIA provides national guidance and oversight for each of the regional units that 

coordinate and execute the inventory and analysis work. FIA has three levels of 

internal management: an executive level involving senior executives from the 

Forest Service and state forestry agencies, who provide broad policy guidance; a 

management level consisting of field program managers from the Forest Service 

and states responsible for implementing the program on a day-to-day basis; and a 

technical level consisting of groups of technical specialists drawn from the Forest 

Service and states, who develop, document, and review program procedures. Each 

region maintains its own internal set of regional customers and partners who collaborate in program implementation. 

This option adopts a similar organizational structure for EFRs that will consist 

of an executive level of oversight, led by perhaps two members of the FS Research 
110

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Executive Team (FSRET) and the EFR national coordinator, a management level 

of oversight led by representatives from each research station, and a technical level 

of oversight led by the current EFR Working Group, which already has a charter 

(which will require updating) and includes two members from the NFS. This organization will provide guidance and the individual EFRs will execute this guidance, 

under the current supervision of research stations.

The second change in organization will entail development of a social network 

that involves staff (e.g., lead scientists from all EFRs) from all the stations. This 

network will enable frequent communication and collaboration among the involved 

players and promote more effective collaboration on the array of research and 

monitoring activities that are part of the network. Social networking tools (e.g., 

SharePoint sites, Facebook sites, Twitter, etc.) will be employed as well as traditional methods of periodic meetings, symposia, and websites.

Projected annual costs over current: $0 (assumes that a national coordinator 

position continues to exist and any needed support staff for a national coordinator’s 

office is embedded in the items above).

Partnerships

We will continue to encourage and support partnerships for collaborations on 

existing and future EFRs. We will actively seek relationships with logical partners 

at selected EFRs that currently have none. We will actively promote the use of EFRs 

by collaborating scientists and explore opportunities to foster relationships through 

mutually beneficial arrangements. We will actively seek support from partners in 

operating our EFR facilities as well as offering EFR facilities for full use by partners.

As demonstrated by a number of EFRs (e.g., H.J. Andrews EF or Sagehen 

EF) an effective strategy is to promote EFRs as dedicated research centers where 

students and faculty can conduct their research projects. Tactics include getting 

involved with scientific clubs and gatherings, posting on university websites, and 

reaching out to department heads and faculty. 

We will also seek and encourage strategic additions to the EFR network 

through use of the provision for cooperating experimental forests. 

Projected annual costs over current: $0 (there will be marginal to significant 

costs i.e., investment of time for many participating R&D employees who make the 

efforts to pursue and execute these ideas). 

Outreach

On this path, outreach and education become explicit objectives of the EFR network. We will continue to provide encouragement and existing staff support for all 

existing outreach and education activities carried out by both Forest Service staff 
111

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

as well as staff from collaborating institutions. In addition, we will provide active 

support for all such activities through development of a new position in the national 

coordinator’s office to do the following tasks:

• Promote transfer of knowledge garnered at EFRs

• Develop educational activities at EFRs with schools and for land managers

• Assist in the development of demonstration sites at EFRs

• Develop community involvement activities at EFRs

• Work with collaborating institutions to promote all outreach and education 

activities done on EFRs by the collaborating institution

Site managers can also develop their own websites to promote their EFR in the 

community and create opportunities for school and volunteer participation.

Projected annual costs over current: $ 200,000

TOTAL annual national costs: $9,700,000 plus $500,000 one-time costs

Anticipated Consequences of Path 4

This path provides a sound foundation for the present and future of EFRs. Significant new financial and logistic investments will be required. Facilities and scientific 

infrastructure will be maintained/upgraded, to enable the ongoing research and 

monitoring activities to continue successfully. Important new scientific initiatives will be pursued and R&D findings will address emerging relevant land and 

resource management issues. We will be able to strategically expand our portfolio 

to include underrepresented ecoregions and provide thorough coverage of forests 

and rangelands in the United States. Key advances in data management and field 

instrumentation will make our work more available and improve the efficiency 

and reliability of our data collection efforts. Much of our historical data will be 

retrieved and put in digital form for long-term archiving. Crucial adjustments to our 

organizational structure and our ability to partner with other scientific institutions 

will significantly improve scientific capabilities and particular attention to outreach 

consideration will advance our visibility to partners and the public.

Path 5: EFRs as R&D’s Core Research Platform

The gate on this path is unlocked by a business decision that the EFR network 

becomes the focal point of the Forest Service R&D organization. If this path is 

chosen it will require a concerted commitment that will require concessions in 

other areas of the R&D program. 

This change will bring R&D research back to the land base it regularly used 

in previous decades. R&D research and monitoring activities will focus on what 

can be done using the EFR network as the test bed for questions and management 
112

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

strategies. All components of the previous options are included in this option.

The emphasis here is to optimize the value and opportunities of the EFR network 

through targeted investments into research and monitoring that happens on EFRs. 

Not all work done by R&D will be aimed at EFRs, of course, but we will seek to 

take every advantage available with these assets.

National investments: 

• Work with collaborating institutions to promote all outreach and education 

activities done on EFRs by the collaborating institution

• Selected/majority of EFRs (at least those in Tiers 1 and 2) have at least one 

active scientist and at least five active cross-site research projects

• Every EFR site has coverage by a full-time information manager

• Every EFR site has strong administrative support 

• An EFR network office is established to provide IM support to sites. This 

includes sensor hardware support, central data management and data management tools, a common Web infrastructure, and tools for site administration. The office coordinates information management (IM) training and 

maintains the internal and external network websites. 

Science

A number of EFRs currently have one or more scientists who dedicate the majority of their research effort on the EFR site. The results of their efforts clearly 

demonstrate the production and value the investment that a dedicated scientist 

can generate. Not all EFRs are suited to this level of investment (e.g., those in 

Tier 3 and especially Tier 4) but there are a number of EFRs that currently have 

no scientist(s) or staff dedicated to working on the site. In this option we provide 

more emphasis to EFRs through redirection of some existing staff, as feasible, 

and hiring of new staff to selected EFRs. The national office, in coordination with 

the EFR Working Group and AD station representatives, will work together to 

identify the 10 highest priority EFRs that could use a dedicated scientist. R&D 

will use some combination of reassignments and new hires to fill these 10 spots. 

New research initiatives will be developed by these scientists to take advantage 

of the opportunities available on the individual site and as part of a regional or 

national network.

Projected annual costs over current: $3,000,000 for new initiatives.

Portfolio

As in path 4, strategic additions to the network will be explored. Efforts will begin 

to establish up to five new EFRs, as needed, within the next 3 years. Each station 
113

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

director, in collaboration with a national team for EFRs, will conduct this evaluation. The existing 80 EFRs will be evaluated using the criteria contained in this 

plan and each will be assigned to the appropriate tiers. This information will be 

used to set funding and other support levels for all EFRs.

We will also seek to identify potential partnerships with other institutions to designate up to five new cooperating experimental forests in strategic 

locations. These will be added to the EFR network through memorandums of 

understanding (MOUs) between the appropriate station director and the cooperating institution. 

Projected annual costs over current: $100,000 for the array of administrative 

costs for handling new EFRs. 

Infrastructure

Maintenance needs will be assessed for all EFRs in the network. A schedule for 

the next 5 years will be developed to address the complete backlog of maintenance 

needs. The R&D Engineer, in collaboration with station directors and station 

engineers, will develop a maintenance priority list for all facilities, and will develop 

a queue and schedule. Some facilities will be identified for demolition. 

Station directors will direct their station engineers to provide recommendations 

for new facility initiatives for EFRs, as needed. These proposals will be given high 

priorities for the Competition by Advantage process for new facilities funding. New 

facilities and modernized facilities on EFRs will be a priority for R&D. 

Projected annual costs over current: $3,000,000.

Data Management

Objectives: (1) create a strong level of IM support for Tier 1 and 2 EFRs to handle 

research and administrative data; (2) aggressively convert all historical data into 

digital formats that are preserved and shared via the R&D data archive; (3) enable 

the network to pursue Grand Challenge-scale research using historical and modern 

data, while retaining the capability to engage in locally focused research; (4) make 

EFRs a compelling proposition for hosting external research.

Although a structure similar to that described for Path 4 could be used, for this 

level of investment a system more like the LTER approach is described. Under this 

scenario the intention is to make a LTER-caliber information manager available 

to every site (at least Tier 1 and 2 sites); establish a fully functional EFR network 

office; and provide for administrative support staff to all EFR sites so that scientists 

have none of these duties.

Projected annual costs over current: $7,000,000.
114

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Personnel

The personnel additions discussed in Path 4 are folded in here. These additions 

should be helpful and complementary to the key feature of this option, additional scientific capacity. In this option there will be up to 10 additional research 

grade scientists to be brought into the Forest Service with the explicit assignment to develop research and monitoring projects in affiliation with a given 

EFR. These scientists will work in tandem with the IM support, technicians, 

and field site administration to carry forward existing research and monitoring 

as well as develop new projects. Collaboration with partner institutions will be 

actively fostered and existing partnerships sustained. New initiatives can be 

drawn from the ideas presented in table 8 as well as original ideas. Working 

closely with NFS staff will be written into the position descriptions of these 

new positions. 

Projected annual costs over current: $4,000,000 ($ 2,500,000 carried forward 

from Path 4 plus $1,500,000 for up to 10 new scientist positions).

Organization

The current organization for EFRs is through each station director’s choice for 

organization and oversight of the EFRs. This option is largely the same as Path 4. It 

will consist of an executive level of oversight, led by two members of FSRET and 

the national coordinator, a management level of oversight led by representatives 

from each research station, and a technical level of oversight led by the current 

EFR Working Group which already has a charter (which will require updating) and 

includes two members from the NFS. 

A somewhat larger national office will oversee network operations, although 

day-to-day activities will continue to be executed by the respective research stations. 

Projected annual costs over current: $0 (assumes a national coordinator 

continues to exist and any support staff for the coordinator is embedded in the 

items above).

Partnerships

We will aggressively seek and support partnerships for collaborations on EFRs. 

We will actively seek relationships with logical partners at selected EFRs which 

currently have none. We will actively promote the use of EFRs by collaborating 

scientists and explore opportunities to cement relationships through mutually 

beneficial arrangements. Seed money for encouraging these kinds of collaborations 

will be provided through requests for proposals that feature research partnerships. 
115

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

We will actively seek support from partners in operating our EFR facilities as well 

as offering EFR facilities for full use by partners. We will also seek and encourage 

strategic additions to the EFR network through use of the provision for cooperating 

experimental forests. 

Projected annual costs over current: $150,000 for a full time partnership 

coordinator (there will be marginal to significant costs for many participating R&D 

(existing) employees who make the efforts to pursue and execute these ideas), and 

$350,000 for seed money to enable partnerships and begin new initiatives.

Outreach

For this path, as for Path 4, the scope of outreach and education is expanded and 

becomes an explicit objective of the EFR network. We will continue to provide 

encouragement and passive support for all existing outreach and education activities carried out by both Forest Service staff as well as staff from collaborating institutions. In addition, we will provide active support for all such activities through 

six new positions, five at the research stations and one in the national coordinator’s 

office to do the following tasks:

• Promote transfer of knowledge garnered at EFRs

• Develop educational activities at EFRs with schools and for land managers

• Assist in the development of demonstration sites at EFRs

• Develop community involvement activities at EFRs

• Work with collaborating institutions to promote all outreach and education 

activities done on EFRs. 

Projected annual costs over current: $1,000,000

TOTAL annual national costs: $18,600,000 plus 500,000 one-time costs.

Anticipated Consequences of Path 5

This path makes a conscious shift toward a significantly greater investment in EFRs 

as part of the complete EFR research and monitoring portfolio. The advantages 

of Path 4 will be brought forward and, in addition, there will be an increase in 

scientific capacity at selected EFRs. A greater emphasis of the R&D organization 

will be placed on the work done at EFRs and new scientists will be able to discover 

and capitalize on what can be accomplished on EFRs. Partnerships will expand and 

the network of EFRs will increase to enhance capacity. A significant increase in 

our outreach and education capabilities will also be a notable feature of this path. 

Overall, EFRs will become a notable and recognized cornerstone of the Forest 

Service R&D activities.
116

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Path 6: Experimental Landscapes 

This path represents a new departure in our EFR enterprise that will require some 

fundamental shifts in both the NFS and Forest Service R&D. There are likely 

some significant administrative hurdles to realizing this approach, but it is an idea 

with merit that is worthy of discussion. This approach has many obstacles under 

current circumstances within the agency, however, a case on its behalf is presented 

here for consideration.

The concept for this path is anchored to three fundamental thoughts; (1) most 

existing EFRs are too small to carry out research at a landscape scale, (2) the 

management challenges of today and beyond require work across broader temporal 

and spatial scales, and (3) the most successful and productive research applied to 

contemporary land management problems is done with a committed participation from the land management community. Thus, the approach of this path is to 

strategically identify a few suitable locations where these three principles could be 

realized in collaboration between national forest systems and R&D. Perhaps this 

could be accomplished using some of our most accomplished EFRs throughout the 

United States, located in a variety of ecological regions, as anchors for expanded 

experimental sites. In either case it will require large landscapes where restoration 

and other contemporary land management objectives can be experimented with 

over large areas. This would entail dedication of large areas of NFS lands, such as 

an entire ranger district (RD), committed to management activities but conducted 

through a partnership with R&D. Initially this would involve one or two per region 

to begin developing the approach.

The objective will be to form a strong collaborative bond between the RD/

national forest and the research staff from the corresponding research station, with 

a focus on carrying out landscape-level experimental management to examine 

existing or new management strategies. The experiments will focus on needed land 

management actions and employ contemporary management techniques. They will 

be done, however, in an adaptive management context, in which scientifically robust 

treatment designs are executed as a partnership between management and research 

at a landscape scale.

There are a number of compelling motives for suggesting this approach. Adaptive management has long been regarded as a transparent strategy for acknowledging the uncertainty in all land management that is performed on lands administered 

by the Forest Service. This approach also recognizes that a closer and more earnest 

working relationship between research and management can be viewed by the public as holding significant merit. Public scrutiny of land management efforts by the 

Forest Service is at a level never before seen. Scientifically defensible management 

The concept for Path 6 

is that (1) most existing 

EFRs are too small 

to carry out research 

at a landscape scale, 

(2) the management 

challenges of today 

and beyond require 

work across broader 

temporal and spatial 

scales, and (3) the 

most productive 

research applied 

to contemporary 

land management 

problems is done 

with a committed 

participation from 

the land management 

community.
117

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

actions are required to support bold, innovative land management initiatives. Furthermore, this approach will blend well with the new Forest Service planning rule. 

This new rule embraces the principles of adaptive management through explicit 

recognition of the assessment/implementation/monitoring cycle that is intended to 

iteratively lead to more scientifically sound land management. 

Of course, this path will require unprecedented cooperation and perhaps 

procedural changes to designate portions of national forest lands as locations for 

experimental landscapes. Certainly there will need to be a strong will on the part of 

both management and research to form this enhanced partnership. However, if this 

can be accomplished, even incrementally with some pilot areas, the level of potential accomplishments is intriguing. We have seen what can be accomplished with 

smaller projects within the confines of existing EFRs. A number of EFRs currently 

have this level of cooperation between research and management and that has led 

to some of our most noteworthy and meaningful achievements within the Forest 

Service. Such experimental areas can set a new level of achievement that other 

districts and forests within a region will find significant benefit.

Science 

With a particular emphasis on selected EFRs on RDs there will need to be a shift 

of resources to support these efforts. A number of EFRs currently have one or more 

scientists who dedicate the majority of their research effort to the EFR site. The 

results of their efforts demonstrate the value of the investment a dedicated scientist 

can generate. Many of these most noteworthy EFRs have developed in tandem with 

the curiosity and dedication of NFS staff who work with research to craft research 

needs and implement experiments. A particular advantage of this path is synergy 

between research and management. Research and monitoring ideas and initiatives 

will be developed collaboratively. New research initiatives will be developed by 

these scientists to take advantage of the opportunities available on the individual 

site and as part of a regional or national network. Funding will be used to spark 

ideas and request proposals in a competitive manner.

Projected annual costs over current: $3,000,000 for new initiatives.

Portfolio 

As in Path 4, strategic additions to the network will be explored. Initially we will seek 

to identify one suitable RD per region that contains a functional EFR to serve as the 

hub for expanded activities. Each station and region, in collaboration with a national 

team for EFRs, will conduct this evaluation. The existing 80 EFRs will be evaluated 

using the criteria contained in this plan and each will be assigned to the appropriate 

tiers. This information will be used to set funding and other support levels for all EFRs.

Of course, this path will 

require unprecedented 

cooperation and 

perhaps procedural 

changes to designate 

portions of national 

forests as locations 

for experimental 

landscapes. 
118

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

We will also seek to identify potential partnerships with other institutions to 

designate up to five new cooperating experimental forests in strategic locations. 

These will be added to the EFR network through MOUs between the appropriate 

station director and the cooperating institution. 

Projected annual costs over current: $100,000 for the array of administrative 

costs for handling new EFRs.

Infrastructure 

Maintenance needs will be assessed for all EFRs in the network. A schedule for 

the next 5 years will be developed to address the complete backlog of maintenance 

needs. The R&D engineer, in collaboration with station directors and station 

engineers, will develop a maintenance priority list for all facilities, and will develop 

a queue and schedule. Some facilities will be identified for demolition. 

Station directors will direct their station engineers to provide recommendations 

for new facility initiatives for EFRs, as needed. These proposals will be given high 

priorities for the Competition by Advantage process for new facilities funding. New 

facilities and modernized facilities will be a priority for R&D on EFRs.

Projected annual costs over current: $3,000,000.

Data Management 

Objectives: (1) create a strong level of IM support for Tier 1 and Tier 2 EFRs to 

handle research and administrative data; (2) aggressively convert all historical data 

into digital formats that are preserved and shared via the R&D data archive; (3) 

enable the network to pursue Grand Challenge-scale research using historical and 

modern data, while retaining capability to engage in locally focused research; (4) 

make EFRs a compelling proposition for hosting external research.

Although a structure similar to that described for Path 4 could be used, for this 

level of investment a system more like the LTER approach is described. Under this 

scenario the intention is to make a LTER-caliber information manager available 

to every site (at least Tier 1 and 2 sites); establish a fully functional EFR network 

office; and provide for administrative support staff to all EFR sites so that scientists 

have none of these duties.

Projected annual costs over current: $7,000,000.

Personnel 

The personnel additions discussed in Path 4 and 5 are folded in here. These 

additions should be helpful and complementary to the key feature of this option, 

additional capacity through larger experimental areas. Personnel from the selected 
119

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

RDs will be collaborating on the full array of duties to execute this path. They will 

remain, of course, as NFS staff and will not affect the personnel needs of this path. 

Collaboration with RDs and national forests will be the approach for development 

of new research or monitoring initiatives. Collaboration with partner institutions 

will also be encouraged. New initiatives can be drawn from the ideas presented in 

table 8 as well as original ideas. 

Projected annual costs over current: $2,500,000 carried forward from Path 4 or 5.

Organization 

The current organization for EFRs is overseen through the discretion of each 

station director. This option is largely the same as Path 4 and 5. It will consist of an 

executive level of oversight, led by two members of FSRET and the EFR national 

coordinator. It will also include a member from the NFS leadership team. Management level of oversight will be led by representatives from each research station, 

and a technical level of oversight led by the current EFR Working Group which 

already has a charter (which will require updating) and includes two members 

from the NFS.

A somewhat larger national office will oversee network operations, although 

day-to-day activities will continue to be executed by the respective research stations. 

Projected annual costs over current: $0 (assumes that a national coordinator 

position continues to exist and any support staff for the coordinator is embedded in 

the items above).

Partnerships 

On this path the emphasis is on expanded experimental areas within national 

forests and addressing issues of common interest with the NFS. We will continue to 

support partnerships with universities and other research institutions for collaborations on EFRs. We will actively promote the use of EFRs by collaborating scientists 

and explore opportunities to cement relationships through mutually beneficial 

arrangements. Seed money for encouraging new research initiatives will focus on 

national forests and our partnership with NFS. We will actively seek support from 

partners in operating our EFR facilities as well as offering EFR facilities for full 

use by partners.

We will also facilitate strategic additions to the EFR network through use of the 

provision for cooperating experimental forests and ranges. 

• Projected annual costs over current: $350,000 for seed money to enable 

partnerships on national forests and begin new initiatives.
120

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Outreach 

For this path, as for Path 4 and 5, outreach and education become explicit objectives of the EFR network. We will continue to provide encouragement and passive 

support for all existing outreach and education activities carried out by both 

Forest Service staff as well as staff from collaborating institutions. In addition, 

we will provide active support for all such activities through six new positions, 

five at the research stations and one in the national coordinator’s office to do the 

following tasks:

• Promote transfer of knowledge garnered at EFRs

• Develop educational activities at EFRs with schools and for land managers

• Assist in the development of demonstration sites at EFRs

• Develop community involvement activities at EFRs

• Work with NFS to promote all outreach and education activities done on 

EFRs, particularly those activities that have a bearing on management of 

NFS lands. 

Projected annual costs over current: $1,000,000.

TOTAL annual national costs: $16,950,000 plus $500,000 onetime costs.

Anticipated Consequences of Path 6 

This path combines some of the more aggressive features of other paths in expanding our capacity to do research and monitoring on EFRs. However, the key feature 

is the expansion of experimental areas to encompass selected locations on national 

forest land for research at a landscape scale. This path will take time to implement 

and will have an impact on the work plans of forests that are selected to dedicate an 

RD as part of an experimental area. There will be institutional and cultural barriers to overcome. Incremental implementation will be prudent to develop and test 

this concept and enable both R&D and NFS to build confidence in the operation of 

the program. The anticipated benefits are potentially enormous. Needed landscape 

treatments would be planned and conducted in an adaptive management framework. These sites could be demonstration forests for embracing the fundamental 

concepts in the new Forest Service planning rule. Much of the public would likely 

find this approach refreshing and honest, accepting and embracing the uncertainty 

in management of our forests and ranges. It is very possible that this assertive 

action will raise the level of confidence of the public in the Forest Service. 

A summary of these six paths and their anticipated consequences is represented 

in table 11. 
121

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Acknowledgments

I thank the following people who have contributed to the development of this 

report. The Experimental Forest and Range Working group was led by Laura 

Kenefic (chair of the group during 2011) and Todd Mowrer (chair of the group in 

2012) and included Jim Guldin, Bea Van Horne, Ralph Crawford, and Tamara 

Heartsill Scalley. Their constant involvement and helpful guidance was indispensable. Others who provided help in the form of text, analysis, layout, maps or other 

graphics, review, or other kinds of assistance include Robert Bailey, Marilyn 

Buford, Marilyn Burrows, Jerry Carlson, Carol DeMuth, Deb Hayes, Prashant 

Hedao, Garland Mason, Malcolm North, Jim Quinn, Rich Pouyat, Gaston Porterie, 

Laurie Porth, Dave Rugg, Lindsey Rustad, Carrie Shaw, Jens Stevens, and students 

at the University of California–Davis Graduate School for Management, including 

Manfei Lau, Roger Hom, and Wignaesh Sivan.

Literature Cited

Adams, M.B.; Loughry, L.; Plaugher, L., comps. 2004. Experimental forests and 

ranges of the USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-321. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research 

Station. 178 p.

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. 2nd ed. 

rev. and expanded (1st ed. 1980). Misc. Pub. No. 1391 (rev.). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 108 p., with separate map at 

1:7,500,000.

Table 11—Anticipated consequences of each of the six paths

Potential 

accomplishments

Estimated costs 

(over current) Deliverables

Path 1 Minimal $250,000 Caretaking status

Path 2 Minimal <$1 million Modest care of historical work

Path 3 Modest $4.5 million Address key needs in data and facilities

Path 4 Meaningful $10 million Expand to the demand for data, modern 

technology, instrumentation, facilities 

Path 5 Significant $19 million Featured asset of R&D

Path 6 Ground-breaking $17.5 milliona Redefines Forest Service and the role of R&D

a Refers to additional costs to the National Forest System.

R&D = Research and Development.
122

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Bradford, J.B.; Weishampel, P.; Smith, M.-L.; Kolka, R.; Birdsey, R.A.; 

Ollinger, S.V.; Ryan, M.G. 2009. Detrital carbon pools in temperate forests: 

magnitude and potential for landscape-scale assessment. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research. 39: 802–813.

Claes Fornell International Group [CFI]. 2009. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service Research and Development Customer Satisfaction Survey Final 

Report June 2009. 

Charnley, S.; Cerveny, L.K. 2011. USDA Forest Service experimental forests 

and ranges: an untapped resource for social science. Journal of Forestry. 109(6): 

313–320.

Cole, J.; Lovett, G.; Findlay, S. 1991. Comparative analyses of ecosystems: 

patterns, mechanisms, and theories. New York: Springer. 375 p.

Fleishman, E.; Blockstein, D.E.; Hall, J.A.; Mascia, M.B.; Rudd, M.A.; Scott, 

J.M.; Sutherland, W.J.; Bartuska, A.M.; Brown, A.G.; Christen, C.A.; 

Clement, J.P.; DellaSala, D.; Duke, C.S.; Eaton, M.; Fiske, S.J.; Gosnell, H.; 

Haney, J.C.; Hutchins, M. Klein, M.L.; Marqusee, J.; Noon, B.R.; Nordgren, 

J.R.; Orbuch, P.M. Powell, J.; Quarles, S.P.; Saterson, K.A.; Savitt, C.C.; 

Stein, B.A.; Webster, M.S.; Vedder, A. 2011. Top 40 priorities for science to 

inform US conservation and management policy. BioScience. 61(4): 290–300. 

Hoover, C.; Rebain, S. 2008. The Kane Experimental Forest carbon inventory: 

carbon reporting with FVS. In: Havis, R.N.; Crookston, N.L., comps. 2008. 

Third Forest Vegetation Simulator Conference; Fort Collins, CO. Proceedings 

RMRS-P-54. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Likens, G.E.; Bormann, F.H.; Johnson, N.M. 1972. Acid rain. Environment. 

14: 33–40.

Lowenstein, E.F.; Davidson, K.R. 2002. Ecological restoration through 

silviculture—a savanna management demonstration area, Sinkin Experimental 

Forest, Missouri. In: Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-48. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 490–494.

Lugo, A.E.; Brown, S.L.; Dodson, R.; Smith, T.S.; Shugart, H.H. 1999. The 

Holdridge life zones of the conterminous United States in relation to ecosystem 

mapping. Journal of Biogeography. 26: 1025–1038.
123

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Lugo, A.E.; Swanson, F.J.; González, O.R.; Adams, M.B; Palik, B.; Thill, 

R.E.; Brockway, D.G.; Kern, C.; Woodsmith, R.; Musselman, R. 2006. Longterm research at the USDA Forest Service’s experimental forests and ranges. 

Bioscience. 56(1): 39–48.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA]. 2006. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. 137 p.

Miller, C.; Staebler, R. 2004. Greatest good: 100 years of forestry in America. 

Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters. 125 p.

Peters, D.P.C.; Groffman, P.M.; Nadelhoffer, K.J.; Grimm, N.B.;Collins, S.L.; 

Michener, W.K.; Huston, M.A. 2008. Living in an increasingly connected 

world: a framework for continental-scale environmental science. Frontiers in 

Ecology and Environment. 6(5): 229–237.

Ryan, D.F.; Swanson, F.J. 2014. Networked science among experimental forests 

and ranges: past experience and a vision for the future. In: Hayes, D.C.; Stout, 

S.L.; Crawford, R.F.; Hoover, A P., eds. USDA Forest Service experimental 

forests and ranges: research for the long term. New York: Springer: 565–584. 

Sedell, J.R.; Swanson, F.J. 1984. Ecological characteristics of streams in oldgrowth forests of the Pacific Northwest. In: Meehan, W.R.; Merrell, T.R.; Hanley, 

T.A., eds. Fish and wildlife relationships in old-growth forests: Proceedings 

of the symposium.Narragansett, RI: American Institute of Fishery Research 

Biologists: 9–16.

Stoleson, S.H.; King, D.I.; Tomosy, M. 2011. Avian research on experimental 

forests and ranges: emergent themes, opportunities, and challenges. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 262: 49–52.

Swanson, F.J.; Goodrich, C.; Moore, K.D. 2008. Bridging boundaries: scientists, 

creative writers, and the long view of the forest. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment. 6(9): 449–504.

Swanson, F.J.; Eubanks, S.; Adams, M.B.; Brissette, J.C.; DeMuth, C. 

2010. Guide to effective research-management collaboration at long-term 

environmental research sites. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-821. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 12 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA]. 2001. National land cover 

database. http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/nlcd-2001.html. (November 22, 2013).
124

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Walbridge, M.R.; Schafer, S.R. 2011. A long-term agro-ecosystem research 

(LTAR) network for agriculture. In: Proceedings of the fourth interagency 

conference on research in the watersheds. Fairbanks, AK. Reston, VA: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Geological Survey.

Wisdom, M.J., Rowland, M.M.; Johnson, B.K.; Dick, B. 2005. History and 

overview of the Starkey Project: Mule deer and elk research for management 

benefits. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference 69. 

Young, J.C. 2010. Warrior of science: Raphael Zon and the origins of forest 

experiment stations. Forest History Today: 4–12.

Youngblood, A.; Palik, B. 2011. Ecological lessons from long-term studies in 

experimental forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 261(5): 889–892.
125

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

The Issue—Rapid Environmental Change

The 21st century is emerging as a time of great environmental change, including 

a rapidly changing climate, continued inputs of atmospheric pollutants, and current and projected shifts in demographics and land use. Together, these challenges 

threaten the health and sustainability of the Nation’s natural resources. The demand 

for information to understand and monitor these environmental changes and to 

expeditiously communicate this information among scientists, to policymakers, 

land managers, and the concerned public has never been greater.

Box 1

Examples of Environmental Sensor Applications

Physical

• Climate (temperature, precipitation, relative humidity, windspeed, etc.)

• Hydrology (stage height, soil moisture, groundwater table, etc.)

Chemical

• Air pollution (O3, nitrous and sulfur oxides, etc.), deposition

• Water quality (pH, nitrates, dissolved carbon quality and quantity, etc.)

• Atmospheric CO2

Optical

• Phenology (canopy greenness and duration)

• Bird and animal movements

Acoustical

• Presence or absence of endangered species

Early Warning Systems

• Fire

• Floods

• Droughts

Appendix 1: Smart Forests for the 21st Century—A New 

Initiative to Develop Cyber Infrastructure 
126

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

The Opportunity—New Advances in Cyber 

Infrastructure

Recent advances in environmental sensor technology, wireless communications, 

and software applications have enabled the development of low-cost, low-power 

multifunctional environmental sensors and sensor networks that can communicate environmental conditions to researchers, managers, and the public in 

real time. This emerging technology generates information at unprecedented 

temporal and spatial scales, and offers transformational opportunities to better 

understand the physical, chemical, and biological “pulse” of both terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems. These real time “windows on watersheds” also provide 

compelling new ways to engage the public, and provide novel tools for resource 

managers (see box 1). 

The EFR Network—Long-Term History of Environmental 

Monitoring and Discovery

The U.S. Forest Service operates a network of 80 experimental forests and ranges 

(EFRs) across the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, and Puerto Rico. These sites are located along broad gradients of climate, 

vegetation, soils, and land use that are representative of most National Forest 

System (NFS) lands. EFRs have a long history of research and environmental 

monitoring. At some EFR sites, environmental records date back more than 100 

years. These long-term data sets are critical for detecting patterns and trends in climate, forest and range health and productivity, and response to natural and human 

induced environmental change. Individually, these sites serve as benchmarks 

against which further change can be gauged. Together, they have the potential to 

serve as a regionally distributed, long-term multisite, multisensor platform for 

detection of short- and longer-term environmental change for forests and rangelands 

of the United States. 

The Need—Updated Cyber Infrastructure

To meet the information and discovery needs of the 21st century, the Forest Service 

must invest in new technology and cyber infrastructure within its network of EFR 

sites. Many EFRs still record basic information such as precipitation, temperature, 

and streamflow using circa 1950s mechanical devices attached to paper and pen 

charts; the charts are collected at weekly or monthly intervals by forestry technicians, transcribed by hand into electronic databases, then analyzed, sometimes 

years later, by scientists. These systems, although reliable, are labor-intensive; 

delivery of data to end users is slow; they have limited capacity for expanded data 
127

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

collection in time and space; they cannot respond to environmental crises in real 

time; and, in many cases, are so obsolete that replacement parts are no longer 

available. At other sites, scientists and managers have begun to invest ad hoc in 

new technology. These are often one-time purchases that address single aspects of a 

complete wireless sensor network (WSN) system (e.g., electronic data collection but 

not transmission or real-time delivery to the Internet), and funds are often not available or inadequate for replacements parts or training of competent staff. A vision 

for a comprehensive redesign and standardization of environmental data collection 

and delivery at Forest Service EFR sites is critically needed. 

The Solution: “Smart Forest” Initiative

The EFR “Smart Forest” initiative offers a strategy to update and modernize cyber 

infrastructure for the collection and delivery of environmental data at EFR sites 

across the country. EFR Smart Forests will provide an integrated technological 

platform to monitor and respond to environmental change at local to continental 

scales. The basic objectives of this initiative will be to: 

• Improve or standardize cyber technology for collection of and wireless transmittal to the Internet of a foundational set of environmental measurements 

at, initially, a core set of Smart Forest sites. These sites will be strategically 

distributed across major geographic, climatic, and vegetation gradients. 

• Identify, evaluate, and deploy solutions to provide real-time access to environmental sensor data from core sites to a single point of entry website. 

• Apply emerging visualization and outreach tools to engage researchers, 

resource managers, educators and the public with Smart Forest data.

Considerable groundwork for this initiative has been laid and real-time data 

access and viewing are available at a growing number of EFR sites (see fig. 

1). Examples of current applications include continuous monitoring of climate 

variables, streamflow, water quality, ground water tables, sap flow, and trace gas 

flux; installation of webcams to improve quality and frequency of phenological 

measurements and observations of animal behavior; and installation and use of 

radio collars for tracking wildlife movements across the landscape. As the processing power of sensors and computers continue to improve at an exponential 

rate, as energy requirements and costs continue to come down, and as the world 

becomes increasingly globalized and connected, WSNs will assume an increasingly common role in our everyday lives, as much or more so than do present-day 

personal computers and cellular telephones. It is critical for the Forest Service to 

make a sound and strategic investment in this technology now to create the “smart 

forests” of the future.
128

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Section I: Foundational Principals for Smart Forests

Implementation of the Smart Forest Initiative will require the formation of a planning 

committee to include a multidisciplinary team of scientists, resource managers, information managers, hardware and software engineers, education and outreach specialists, and administrators. The keys to its success will be modularity and flexibility. 

By modular, we mean developing a basic unit and its communications hardware 

and software that can be deployed at multiple locations within a site or across sites, 

and which can accommodate an expandable suite of sensors of different types. By 

flexible, we recognize that the basic unit will need to be adapted to individual sites, 

reflecting potential implementation barriers (such as complex terrain, remote access, 

harsh conditions, and the availability of power or trained personnel), as well as different resource and management needs. Developing this technology with the limited 

resources available to individual EFR sites is daunting, and yields only site-specific 

applications and insights. Developing this technology with the resources available to 

the U.S. Forest Service, providing this to individual EFR sites, and developing new 

“middleware” to stream data from multiple sites to a single point of access, where it 

can be made available to a range of end users and used to develop synthesis products 

in real time, is an exciting and attainable goal. Below, we outline several features that 

should be considered in the development of the Smart Forests Initiative. 

I. Key Components and Considerations

For this initiative to succeed and gain wide acceptance, the following issues must 

be addressed.

• Clear articulation of initial scientific and societal needs and questions

for which baseline ecological data are required. An initial set of needs 

and questions that can be addressed only by a multisite, multisensor cyber 

technology platform delivering data to end users in real time must be identified, coupled with clear and timely deliverables. 

• Identification of specific data needed to address these questions. Careful consideration must be given to specific data needs to address the questions identified 

above. Scientists, modelers, resource managers, educators, and the public should 

be consulted to verify that the appropriate set of measurements is identified. 

• Determination of spatial and temporal resolution needed to address 

these questions now and in the coming decades. New techniques for processing and storing “Big Data” are being advanced daily, and these aspects 

of cyber infrastructure are no longer major barriers to deployment of these 

systems. Data collections should be predicated on research, modeling, management, and outreach needs.
129

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

• Evaluation of hardware and software needed to collect these data.

Considerable effort has already been spent to identify and evaluate hardware and software needed for this initiative, both by Forest Service scientists as well as scientists within other agencies (e.g., NOAA, USGS, NSRC). 

A review of these efforts should be a starting point for the Smart Forests 

Initiative. The question of whether to use identical hardware and software 

at all sites (NEON model) or allow individual sites to develop their own 

systems but mandate common data quality and delivery objectives (LTER 

model) must be addressed. 

• Determination of how to deliver data most effectively and efficiently

from the field to the repository for storage and subsequent analysis. A 

range of options now exist for real-time data delivery, including cell phones, 

satellite, radio telemetry, meteor bursts, and regular manual downloads. 

This is an area in which site factors will determine technological solutions.

• Designing a system with maximum flexibility for expansion as new

environmental concerns emerge and novel environmental sensors 

are developed. 

II. Principles for Managing This Initiative:

Although the vision for the EFR Smart Forest Initiative is expansive, it is also 

necessary to maintain focus and manageability. The following principles will thus 

help guide this initiative:

• The initiative is aimed to serve the entire EFR network. However, it may 

not be possible or desirable to implement the approach at each EFR, at least 

initially. A selection approach will be adopted to strategically determine 

which EFRs should be part of the initial implementation of the effort. This 

will be rooted in the information objectives of the overall effort.

• The fundamental purpose of this initiative is to develop credible scientific data and analyses to inform land and resource management decisions. 

Strategic partnerships will be developed with other federal, state, and private agencies when possible to share the cost and benefits associated with 

this initiative.

• The basic intention for this initiative is to provide for data integrity and 

access. Data collection protocols, accuracy, and precision will be the highest priority to enable pooling of the data and cross-site analyses involving 

the entire network.

• A fundamental shift in scientific data sharing and “ownership” will be 

required to make this initiative a success. It will be important to develop 
130

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

and foster a culture of collegiality and collaboration that involves all 80 

EFRs and any partner agencies and facilities.

• It must be recognized that this is an investment in the future and requires a 

relatively significant short-term investment followed by a long-term commitment to maintain the system. 

III. Strategic Investment Requirements

The success of this initiative will depend on careful planning, a sound and robust 

investment strategy, and a commitment to adopting and maintaining this technology as part of our mission statement. Achieving the objectives of this initiative will 

require investments in all of the following:

• People. Skilled technicians, trained in the deployment and use of the equipment, will be needed. These technicians need not be site-specific but may 

service several sites in a station or region. 

• Network Office. Direction from a central network office will be critical to 

effectively manage this initiative on a national scale. Trained staff to provide support for data oversight, delivery, and synthesis will be important to 

maximize the benefits of this continental-scale observational platform and 

to provide support for individual nodes of the national network.

• Equipment. Selected, state-of-the-art equipment will replace the outdated, 

inefficient equipment that is currently in use. Careful planning is required 

to determine what best fits both the individual requirements of each site as 

well as the needs of the network.

• Data Management. The entire EFR network is currently being evaluated to determine data management requirements that optimize archiving, 

storage, and retrieval of the large and growing body of data. This initiative 

needs to be imbedded in that larger overall strategy. Innovative and effective means are needed to deliver the data from the field to the end user.

Section II: First Smart Forests

As discussed previously, it will not be feasible, affordable, or desirable to deploy 

cyber technology in all EFRs at the outset of implementation. Here we suggest a set 

of First Forests (table 12; fig. 2). Selection criteria include the following:

• Location: EFRs selected for the initial set of Smart Forests are distributed 

across the geographic and climatic gradients of the entire EFR network, 

with First Smart Forests in all nine Forest Service regions and their associated research stations. 
131

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

• Vegetation Types: First Smart Forests include a variety of forest and range 

types.

• Existing Cyber Infrastructure and Trained Personnel: for expediency and 

economy, most of the First Smart Forests were chosen to have robust existing cyber infrastructure and trained personnel. One (Héen Latinee) was 

selected to demonstrate feasibility to build a Smart Forest with little existing cyber infrastructure, no trained personnel, and a remote location.

• Historical Record: the initial Smart Forests effort will focus on climate and 

hydrology. Therefore, those sites with long-term meteorological and hydrological records were given priority (e.g., Fort Valley and Crossett EFs).

Section III: Initial Infrastructure and Measurements

We expect to convene a panel of experts to provide input to the First Smart Forests 

design and implementation. Here we propose an overview of what we anticipate to 

be key components of this initiative. 

Given that physical measurements are the most developed and given the need 

for climate data at the local and continental scale, especially for extreme weather 

events, we will focus the First Smart Forests efforts on (1) developing the cyber 

infrastructure “backbone” for each First Smart Forest site, (2) deploying a vertical 

array of sensors to measure and monitor a suite of climate variables, (3) transmitting these data to a base station, (4) transferring data from the base station to a 

single point of access in near real time (defined here as within 24 hours of data 

collection), and (5) developing interactive visualization, graphical, and downloading capabilities. Considerable effort will be devoted to both quality assurance and 

quality control, from routine sensor calibrations through automated streaming QC 

and gap filling algorithms, to human screening of final data products.

The cyber backbone for each site will consist of:

• Individual sensors

• Power sources (AC, DC, solar, other)

• Data loggers for data collection and storage

• Telemetry system to transmit data to base station

• Base station connected to the Internet 

We expect to tailor this infrastructure to meet individual site needs without compromising our ability to pool the data from all sites. The systems will be designed 

for maximum flexibility to accommodate additional sensors as funding or technology becomes available. Many of the sites listed in table 12 have existing infrastructure and need support only for upgrades, replacement parts, and maintenance. 
132

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

We propose the following vertical suite of core measurements for each site (to 

be collected at 30-minute intervals). 

1. Aboveground Climate: We propose the standard suite of measurements following NOAA protocols:

▪ Air temperature (mean, minimum and maximum for interval)

▪ Relative humidity

▪ Windspeed

▪ Wind direction

▪ Total precipitation

2. Belowground Climate: We anchor the soil climate measurements at an 

upper 2 cm depth and a lower 50 cm depth. The middle two depths are 

arrayed according to site-specific rooting depth.

Table 12—Suggested initial experimental forests and ranges (EFRs) for the First Smart Forest initiative

Experimental 

forest

State or 

territory

Forest 

Service 

region

Research 

station

Cyber 

infrastructure

Climate 

tower 

network

EFR 

climate 

synthesis

Other 

feature

Baltimore Maryland 9 NRS *** X X LTER

Bartlett New 

Hampshire

9 NRS *** X NEON

Bonanza Creek Alaska 6 PNW LTER

Coweeta North Carolina 8 SRS *** X X LTER

Crossett Arkansas 8 SRS X

Fort Valley Arizona 3 RMRS X Long record

GLEES Wyoming 2 RMRS *** X X

Hawaii Tropical Hawaii 5 PSW *** Remote, 

RAWS

Héen Latinee Alaska 6 PNW None Remote

H.J. Andrews Oregon 6 PNW *** X LTER

Howland Maine 9 NRS *** X Ameriflux

Hubbard Brook New 

Hampshire

9 NRS *** X LTER, SCAN, 

USGS

Luquillo Puerto Rico 12 IITF X LTER

Marcell Minnesota 9 NRS *** X X

San Dimas California 5 PSW X Long record

Silas Little New Jersey 9 NRS *** X

Wind River Washington 6 PNW *** X

NRS = Northern Research Station; PNW = Pacific Northwest Research Station; SRS = Southern Research Station; RMRS = Rocky Mountain Research 

Station; IITF = International Institute of Tropical Forestry; PSW = Pacific Southwest Research Station; GLEES = Glacier Lakes Ecosystem Experiments 

Site; LTER = Long-Term Ecological Research; NEON = National Ecological Observatory Network; RAWS = Remote automated weather station, 

operated by the National Interagency Fire Center; SCAN = Soil Climate Analysis Network; USGS = U.S. Geological Survey.
133

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

▪ Soil temperature (5 cm, mid rooting zone, bottom of rooting zone, 50 cm)

▪ Soil moisture (5 cm, mid rooting zone, bottom of rooting zone, 50 cm)

3. Hydrology—Sites with existing hydrology programs will additionally measure:

▪ Stage height

▪ Stream temperature

4. Webcam—Two webcams will be installed at each site: one for high-frequency phenological measurements and one for capture of charismatic species or vistas for outreach and education purposes.

Identical sensors will be used for all measurements at all sites, facilitating 

quality assurance controls, inter-site comparisons, and network level technical and 

scientific information sharing. We will adapt NEON’s plug-‘n’-play model, where 

each sensor has a unique identifier, recognizable anywhere in the Smart Forests 

network system. 

Section IV—Initial and Continuing Costs

It is not the purpose of this document to provide a detailed budget for this initiative 

at this time. However, it is possible to provide preliminary insights on costs based 

on current efforts at EFRs across the country. These are shown in table 13. For sites 

with no known cyber infrastructure, start-up costs are estimated at $25,000 per site 

for the suite of measurements in Section III. For sites with existing Forest Service 

Tower Network (FSTN) or cyber infrastructure of similar quality, start-up cost is 

pro-rated to $5,000 per site for belowground climate and/or hydrological sensors. 

Maintenance costs will differ, depending on the complexity of the site sensor 

network, with less maintenance associated with a single weather station, and more 

with networks of weather and stream gaging stations. Here we use an average of 0.5 

person days per week (about $4,160/yr), and $3,000 per site per year for equipment 

maintenance and upgrades. 
134

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935
135

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

The following is a list of ongoing or proposed projects associated with EFRs at the 

time of this writing. Since no formal network has been established, each project is 

operating on an ad hoc basis. 

Part 1—Current Cross-EFR Research and Monitoring 

(table 7).

1 and 2. ClimDB and HydroDB

Objectives—

The National Science Foundation’s Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) 

program and many U.S. Forest Service research stations compile and maintain 

extensive, long-term ecological databases including streamflow and meteorological 

measurements. These databases have been widely used in inter-site comparisons, 

modeling studies, and land management-related studies, and continue to grow more 

valuable for addressing large-scale questions (both temporally and spatially). To 

facilitate inter-site research among the network sites, information managers have 

developed a prototype to provide climatic summaries dynamically over the Internet 

(http://www.fsl.orst.edu/climhy). Individual sites maintain local climate data in 

local information systems, while a centralized site continually harvests, updates, 

and provides access to all site data through a common database. Common distribution report formats and graphical displays have been established to meet specific 

needs of climate data users.

Sixteen EFRs are participants in the ClimDB/HydroDB project, along with 

additional research sites from LTER, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and 

other research areas within the Forest Service. The following are participants: 

Baltimore Ecosystem Study (Cooperating EF), Fernow EF, Hubbard Brook EF, 

and Marcell EF.

The EFRs that have long-term weather and hydrologic data are a perfect fit for 

this project. Note however, that even those EFRs that have long-term weather data, 

but no hydrologic data, (e.g., no gaged watersheds) can still participate in this project. 

Application of R&D results—

This is a good example of making data available for cross-site studies, and of good 

partnering with other agencies (in this case, LTER and USGS). These data have 

applicability to questions related to climate change, to changes with changing land 

use, and other questions addressing temporal issues. These data also have applicability for people who are interested in making comparisons across forest types or 

ecosystem types. 

Appendix 2: Cross-Experimental Forest and Range 

Research and Monitoring
136

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

3. Watershed Directory

Objectives—

The objective of this online directory was to provide a searchable tool that would facilitate networking and cross-site research among Forest Service (and eventually other) 

researchers. The directory is a product of the national Silviculture and Range Synthesis 

Workshop held in 2000. Researchers at the workshop realized that they did not know 

enough about each other’s research watersheds; the Directory of Watershed Context 

allows users to look for research watersheds with particular characteristics. Within 

NRS, the following are participants: Fernow EF, Hubbard Brook EF, and Marcell EF.

Application of R&D results—

The Directory of Watershed Context is intended as a networking tool, and a means 

to further watershed research. It is currently undersubscribed, underadvertised and 

underutilized, but could be quite useful within the EFR network, and ultimately to 

outside collaborators and cooperators as well. For more information: http://www.

fs.fed.us/research/efr/fs_watershed/ws_all_watersheds.htm

4. EcoTrends

Objectives—

The EcoTrends project is a collaborative effort among state and federal agencies 

and institutions, primarily in the United States, to make long-term ecological data 

easy to access, analyze, and compare within and across sites. The project’s website 

is a portal to a collection of standardized long-term ecological datasets and their 

metadata; data synthesis tools; and information about participating research sites 

and their agencies. The goal of the project is to make simplified versions of datasets, 

called derived datasets, easily accessible and understandable to a large audience in 

common formats on a single website. 

Participating sites are Baltimore (Cooperating EF), Fernow EF, Hubbard Brook 

EF, and Marcell EF. 

Application of R&D results—

The intent of EcoTrends is to promote synthesis activities and the use of longterm data, not only by scientists, but also more generally by students, teachers, 

and decisionmakers. 

5. Stream Chem DB 

Objectives—

Many Forest Service watershed research sites maintain extensive, long-term 

ecological databases, including streamflow and meteorological measurements, 
137

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

which are available through the ClimDB/HydroDB Web harvester (http://www.

fsl.orst.edu/climhy). Most of these EFRs also measure stream chemistry on these 

same gaged watersheds. Chem DB is an effort to create similar data availability 

for the stream chemistry data from a variety of sites, with the goal to develop a 

Web-accessible portal to data for synthesis projects and data sharing. Because of 

differing analysts, and analytical techniques, among others, creating a common 

format and database structure is more complex than for streamflow and meteorological data. Individual sites choose to participate, including partners in the 

LTER program. The following are participants: Fernow EF, Hubbard Brook EF, 

and Marcell EF.

Application of R&D results—

With an overarching goal to document ecosystem conditions, identify environmental problems, and assess effects of landscape-level management decisions, these 

data have applicability to questions related to climate change, to changes with land 

use, and other questions addressing temporal issues. These data also have applicability for people who are interested in comparing across forest types or ecosystem 

types. For more information: http://web.fsl.orst.edu/streamchem/ 

6. AmeriFlux

Objectives—

AmeriFlux is a network of sites that provides continuous observations of exchanges 

of carbon dioxide, water, and energy. These sites also provide detailed environmental data (air and soil temperatures, precipitation, solar radiation, soil moisture) as 

well as ecological measurements including forest leaf area index and foliage nutrient content. Sites feature one or more instrumented towers extending through the 

plant canopy. For more information and data, see http://public.ornl.gov/ameriflux/.

The purpose of these measurements is to improve understanding of ecosystem 

function, especially forest carbon and water cycles. 

Science questions—

The network role is to address the scientific uncertainties associated with global 

change. Our focus is to address these scientific questions:

1. What are the magnitudes of carbon storage and the exchanges of energy, 

carbon dioxide (CO2), and water vapor in terrestrial systems? What is the 

spatial and temporal variability?

2. How is this variability influenced by vegetation type, phenology, changes 

in land use, management, and disturbance history, and what is the relative 

effect of these factors?
138

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

3. What is the causal link between climate and the exchanges of energy, CO2, 

and water vapor for major vegetation types, and how does seasonal and 

interannual climate variability and anomalies influence fluxes?

4. What is the spatial and temporal variation of boundary layer CO2 concentrations, and how does this vary with topography, climatic zone and vegetation?

Application of R&D results—

These data have proven useful in determining the response of forests to climate 

variation, management activities, and disturbance. AmeriFlux data are also being 

used to develop and test models of ecosystem function, and for ground-truthing 

remote sensing products. 

7. Federal Pollinator Network 

Objectives—

To monitor the status and trends of pollinating insects.

Bees are the primary insect pollinator in almost all North American environments. They collect and move pollen to provision their nests and in so doing pollinate 30 to 60 percent of all plants in a given environment. There are approximately 

4,000 species of bees in the United States. 

There is an international perception that populations of pollinating insects in 

North America are in decline. Despite this perception, we have no ability to measure the status or trends of native bees in the United States. 

This project, which was initiated in 2010 and expanded to 23 EFRs in 2011, is a 

collaboration between the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Forest Service, and is in 

response to a federal meeting and task force on the topic of insect pollinators.

EFs participating in this ongoing, national cross-EF monitoring project include:

• Fernow (West Virginia, Thomas Schuler)

• Marcell (Minnesota, Randall Kolka)

• Massabesic (Maine, Mariko Yamasaki)

• Penobscot (Maine, Laura Kenefic and John Brissette)

• Vinton Furnace (Ohio, Daniel Yaussy)

Application of R&D results—

Findings of this study would inform land management and conservation bureaus 

about the status and trends of native and introduced bees and other pollinating 

insects, and are critical for evaluating the veracity of the perceptions of a North 

American insect pollinator decline. The experimental forests and ranges are ideally 

suited for this effort owing to their spatial distribution and, in most cases, colocation of meteorological stations.
139

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

8. Forest Service Climate Tower Network

Objectives—

The Forest Service supports climate change and carbon cycle research at a range 

of experimental forests and other sites across the country. At many of these locations, towers extending above the surrounding forest are used to sample climatic 

conditions and to measure the transfer of CO2 or other greenhouse gases between 

the atmosphere and the forest (carbon sequestration research). The climate tower 

network uses precision temperature and precipitation measurement equipment 

(equivalent to that found in NOAA’s Climate Reference Network) to detect trends 

in environmental factors across a range of sites. A stable and consistent environmental data record is needed to interpret trends in forest growth, water use, and 

other factors.

Application of R&D results—

A subset of the network is instrumented with precision CO2 analyzers. These 

analyzers have several unique capabilities, including the ability to reliably 

discriminate small concentration differences, and the ability to monitor the 

concentration of a stable isotopic version of ordinary CO2. These capabilities 

mean that this network would help resolve the east-west atmospheric gradients 

in CO2 that develop from photosynthetic uptake and fossil fuel emissions. These 

gradients and estimates of the source regions assessed by these analyzers would 

contribute directly to quantifying carbon sequestration by our nation’s forests. 

The unique ability of this network to continuously measure CO2 isotope content 

would be used on a regional scale to assess photosynthetic stress and allow for 

estimates of root and soil contributions to respiration. This information would 

significantly improve the accuracy of model projections of future forest carbon 

uptake and storage.

Research questions being addressed by the network include:

• How are environmental conditions (temperature, rainfall, snowfall) changing in our forests?

• How do trends in environmental factors above forests compare to measurements made at NWS and Climate Reference sites?

• How much carbon is being stored by our forests and surrounding regions?

• Sites: Baltimore (Cooperating EF), Bartlett EF, Howland (Cooperating EF), 

Marcell EF, Silas Little EF, Willow Creek EF, Coweeta EF, GLEES, and 

Wind River EF
140

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

9. Monitoring Climate Change Impacts on EFRs

Objectives—

Climate change is expected to have major impacts on forests in the next century. 

However, there is research and speculation that silvicultural intervention can 

mitigate impacts of climate change. For example, density control may improve 

site moisture balance and reduce impacts of drought. Assessing forest changes 

and predicting future impacts requires measurements that are expensive and 

difficult to fund with external grants. Measurements must be both detailed

(e.g., individual tree growth/mortality, fine spatial scales) and frequent (every 

1 to 3 years.). Detailed annual measurements of tree establishment, growth, 

and mortality are rare in most forests; the lack of these data represents a clear 

knowledge gap in our understanding of how forests would respond to changing climate. Forest Service research is uniquely positioned to fill this knowledge gap, because of our network of existing long-term silvicultural studies 

on experimental forests and our ability to sustain detailed, consistent forest 

measurements over long time horizons. We propose a new effort to strengthen 

the capacity of the Forest Service to quantify the impact of climate change on 

forests. Our specific objectives are:

1. Establish an efficient long-term monitoring protocol for repeated annual 

or near annual measurements to quantify tree establishment, growth, and 

mortality.

2. Install a network of monitoring plots on experimental forests to collect 

annual demographic data.

3. Use dendrochronological methods (tree cores) to estimate establishment, 

growth, and mortality for the recent past on each plot, providing useful 

background information—almost as though the monitoring efforts were 

started years ago. 

4. Relate annual demographic responses to climatic variation.

The primary questions to be addressed with this research are: (1) how variable 

are tree growth and mortality in response to climatic variation and (2) how do 

different silvicultural treatments that influence density, structure, and composition, 

influence responses?

Application of R&D results—

This research would enable the Forest Service to address complicated climate 

change issues, including long-term sustainability of forests under different silvicultural approaches. Data generated would be used to parameterize and validate prediction models, to assess the efficacy of silvicultural approaches for mitigation of climate 
141

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

change, and as a “canary in the coal mine” to detect climate change impacts in 

managed forests. As such, this study would be important to climate change researchers, silvicultural scientists, forest managers, and policymakers. It would also demonstrate to our various stakeholders that the Forest Service is working to detect climate 

change impacts, but more importantly, examining how on-the-ground forest management, a bread and butter activity of the NFS, might be used to mitigate impacts. 

10. Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET)

Objectives—

CASTNET is a regional long-term environmental monitoring program administered and operated by the Environmental Protections Agency’s Clean Air Markets 

Division (CAMD). The regional monitoring network was formed to assess trends in 

acidic deposition associated with emission reduction regulations, such as the Acid 

Rain Program (ARP) and NOx Budget Trading Program (NBP). CASTNET has 

since become the nation’s primary monitoring network for measuring concentrations of air pollutants involved in acidic deposition affecting regional ecosystems 

and rural ambient ozone levels. Presently there are a total of 86 operational CASTNET sites located in or near rural areas and sensitive ecosystems collecting data on 

ambient levels of pollutants where urban influences are minimal.

Application of R&D results—

CASTNET provides long-term monitoring of air quality in rural areas to determine 

trends in regional atmospheric nitrogen, sulfur, and ozone concentrations and 

deposition fluxes of sulfur and nitrogen pollutants to evaluate the effectiveness of 

national and regional air pollution control programs.

11. National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON)

Objectives—

NEON’s goal is to contribute to global understanding and decisions in a changing 

environment using scientific information about continental-scale ecology obtained 

through integrated observations and experiments. 

NEON will create a new national observatory network to collect ecological 

and climatic observations across the continental United States, including Alaska, 

Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The observatory network would be the first of its kind 

designed to detect and enable forecasting of ecological change at continental scales 

over multiple decades. 

Application of R&D results—

NEON has partitioned the United States into 20 ecoclimatic domains, each of 

which represents different regions of vegetation, landforms, climate, and ecosystem 
142

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

performance. Data would be collected from strategically selected sites within each 

domain and synthesized into information products that can be used to describe 

changes in the nation’s ecosystem through space and time. 

The data NEON collects and provides will focus on how land use, climate 

change, and invasive species affect biodiversity, disease ecology, and ecosystem 

services. Obtaining integrated data on these relationships over a long-term 

period is crucial to improving forecast models and resource management for 

environmental change. 

These data and information products would be readily available to scientists, 

educators, students, decisionmakers, and the public. This would allow a wide 

audience, including members of underserved communities, to use NEON tools 

to understand and address ecological questions and issues. The NEON infrastructure is a means of enabling transformational science and promoting broad 

ecological literacy. 

12. National Atmospheric Depositions Program (NADP)

Objectives—

Sites in the NADP precipitation chemistry network began operations in 1978 with 

the goal of providing data on the amounts, trends, and geographic distributions of 

acids, nutrients, and base cations in precipitation. The network grew rapidly in the 

early 1980s. Much of this expansion was funded by the National Acid Precipitation 

Assessment Program (NAPAP), established in 1981 to improve understanding of 

the causes and effects of acidic precipitation. Reflecting the federal NAPAP role 

in the NADP, the network name was changed to NADP National Trends Network 

(NTN). Today, the NADP is SAES National Research Support Project - 3. The 

NTN network currently has 250 sites. 

Application of R&D results—

NADP monitoring data show that wet sulfate deposition has decreased by an 

average of 30 percent since the early 1990s in the eastern United States. The largest 

decreases occurred in Maryland, New York, Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Nitrogen deposition has decreased as well, but to a lesser extent. 

Legislative mandates, federal government programs, and environmentally 

friendly changes in fossil fuel use in electrical power plants have successfully lowered the emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOx and the resulting acid deposition 

in the United States since the 1980s. However, the problem still exists. Scientists 

continue to try to fully understand acid rain and its long-term effects on the environment and on human health. 
143

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

13. Soil Climate Analysis Network (SCAN) 

Objectives—

This is a national program run by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. It 

began as a pilot project in 1991 with 21 stations in 10 states. The purpose was to 

determine the feasibility of a nationwide soil-climate monitoring system. The program uses meteor burst communication to acquire remote station data; 1999 SCAN 

began with Natural Resource Conservation Service and cooperator funding.

The current network has 115 stations in 39 states. SCAN provides hourly data 

and makes them available via the NWCC Web page. Stations send data via meteor 

burst or line of sight. Most stations have standard parameters, but some are for 

special studies and have additional sensors. Belowground monitoring includes soil 

moisture at 2-, 4-, 8-, 20-, and 40-inch depths and soil temperature at 2-, 4-, 8-, 20-, 

and 40-inch depths.

Application of R&D results—

National resource management issues for which long-term soil/climate information 

is needed include:

• Input to global circulation models.

• Predicting, monitoring, and verifying droughts.

• Developing new soil moisture accounting and risk assessments.

• Monitoring and predicting changes in crop, range, and woodland productivity in relation to soil moisture-temperature changes.

• Predicting regional shifts in irrigation water requirements, which may 

affect reservoir construction and groundwater levels.

• Predicting shifts in wetlands.

• Predicting changes in runoff that affect flooding and flood control structures.

• Verifying and ground-truthing satellite and soil moisture model information.

• Predicting the long-term sustainability of cropping systems and watershed health.

14. USA National Phenology Network (NPN)

Objectives—

The USA National Phenology Network brings together scientists; federal, state, and 

local agencies; nonprofit groups; and educators and students to monitor the impacts 

of climate change on the phenology of plants, animals, and landscapes in the United 

States. The network depends on the involvement of educational institutions and 

volunteers to motivate and organize people of all ages to observe and learn about 

seasonal changes of the ecosystems around them. 
144

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Application of R&D results—

The USA National Phenology Network encourages people to observe and record 

phenology as a way to discover and explore the nature and pace of our dynamic 

world. The network makes phenology data, models, and related information available to empower scientists, resource managers, and the public in decisionmaking 

and adapting to variable and changing climate and environments. The network 

promotes a broad understanding of plant and animal phenology and its relationship 

with environmental change. 

15. Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) on EFRs

Objectives—

(1) Improve landscape-scale assessment of the effects of climate variability, and 

natural and management disturbances, on ecosystem demographics and carbon 

stocks and fluxes; (2) Develop a monitoring approach and establish permanent 

monitoring locations at experimental forests for early detection of impacts of 

climate change on ecosystem processes and function. The general approach is to 

link intensive monitoring of ecosystem processes at experimental forests with FIA’s 

extensive monitoring and remote sensing. This strategy complements the existing 

three-phase FIA sampling strategy, such that sampling at intensive sites may be 

consider a fourth sampling phase involving measurements made at fine spatial and 

temporal scales. 

The EFR network broadly represents forest conditions and management/

disturbance history of the nation’s forests, and is suitable for both intensive and 

destructive sampling in contrast to the FIA network. Participants include Baltimore 

(Cooperating EF), Bartlett EF, Hubbard Brook EF, Marcell EF, and Silas Little EF.

Application of R&D results—

The additional detailed measurements enhance the FIA plot-based carbon estimates 

by providing more complete and accurate estimates of the different carbon pools 

and their rates of change. This research is important to land managers and decisionmakers who need information to decide on policies regarding how climate and land 

use change influence ecosystem carbon pools and feedbacks to the atmosphere. In 

the end, we would provide FIA and the public with tools to better assess patterns in 

long-term carbon sequestration in forest ecosystems in the United States.

Note that these studies are linked to several other initiatives, providing for strong 

leveraging of funds. NASA-sponsored studies are using experimental forests as 

ground-truth for landscape-scale monitoring and assessment. And studies funded 

through the Forest Service Global Change Program are using experimental forests for 

developing advanced monitoring techniques for carbon and climate change detection. 
145

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

16. PhenoCam

Objectives—

Phenological events such as spring leaf emergence and autumn senescence exert 

strong control on primary productivity, hydrologic processes, nutrient cycling, and 

feedbacks to the climate system. Phenology has been shown to be a robust integrator of the effects of year-to-year climate variability and longer term climate change 

on natural systems (e.g., recent warming trends). Experimental studies have shown 

how other global change factors (e.g., elevated CO2 and N deposition) can also influence phenology. The PhenoCam network uses high-resolution, Internet-connected 

digital cameras to provide automated, near-surface remote sensing of canopy 

phenology across the United States with a special concentration in the Northeast 

and adjacent parts of Canada.

Application of R&D results—

Research questions being addressed include the following:

1. How does phenology regulate spatial and temporal variability in ecosystem 

function (e.g., photosynthesis, respiration, net carbon sequestration, and 

transpiration)?

2. How well is MODIS able to capture phenology and what is the nature and 

magnitude of uncertainty in moderate resolution space-based estimates of 

phenological events?

3. What are the environmental factors regulating phenology (e.g., forcing 

temperatures, chilling, and day length) in different ecosystems? How would 

phenology respond to projected future climate change scenarios?

This project is directed by Dr. A. Richardson of Harvard University. More 

information is available at: http://klima.sr.unh.edu/info.html.

Sites: Bartlett EF, Howland (Cooperating EF), Hubbard Brook EF, and Silas 

Little EF.

Scope: National (other EFs include Coweeta and Wind River).

17. Regional Environmental Sensor Network

Objectives—

Electronic environmental sensors and associated data logging have been with us 

for nearly three decades. They have become standard in environmental monitoring and research, but remain a challenge to deploy and “do right.” Within the 

past decade, the selection and capabilities of sensors have advanced rapidly, and 

transmission of data to the world in real time has become commonplace. To keep 

abreast of this quickly shifting electronic landscape, the Northeastern States 
146

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Research Cooperative (NSRC) has funded a new regional working group on 

environmental sensors. The goal of this group is to inform, assist, and support 

researchers at long-term ecological research sites in the northeastern United States 

on basic to advanced sensor deployment, data acquisition, and real-time transmission. In addition to this “clearinghouse” function, participants in this project would 

team up to advance the understanding of environmental processes and response 

to global change through integrated planning and deployment of state-of-the-art 

sensor systems. The working group would also engage the public with an easy to 

understand real-time website. NRS EFs involved in this effort include: Bartlett, 

Hubbard Brook, and Marcell.

Application of R&D results—

This project would allow members of the research community to assist each other 

in basic measurements and programming, sensor choices, and keeping abreast of 

the rapidly changing sensor landscape. In so doing we hope to more fully exploit the 

potential of new-generation environmental sensors to facilitate process understanding and response to change, and communicate findings to the public. Beyond their 

scientific relevance, “real-time” data from environmental sensor networks can be 

used as a teaching and outreach tool to engage the public with real-time images of 

charismatic species (e.g., birds, moose), weather and phenological events, and live 

data streaming from a forested ecosystem. 

18. EFR Climate Synthesis

Objectives—

The objectives of this project are to (1) identify EFR sites with long-term (>40 year) 

temperature and precipitation records, (2) evaluate statistical trends in long-term 

data sets, and (3) assess accessibility of the data. (Note: this is a project initiated 

by the EFR Working Group, in response to a request from the Chief following his 

meeting with Mary Beth Adams last year).

NRS sites that provided data for this effort are: Baltimore (Cooperating EF), 

Fernow EF, Hubbard Brook EF, Marcell EF, and Vinton Furnace State EF.

Application of R&D results—

This effort would (1) highlight long-term climatic research across the EFR network, 

(2) identify continental-scale climatic trends, (3) identify gaps in our knowledge, 

and (4) provide a basic framework for designing a future network of weather/

climate stations at EFR sites. Results would be provided to the Chief. This is also a 

pilot case study for accessibility of FS EFR data. 
147

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

19. Hydroclimatic Effects on Ecosystem Response

Objectives—

Pulses of sulfate (SO4) in streams have been linked to the severity of drought at 

sites within southeastern Canada and the northeastern United States. However, the 

extent to which this process occurs across the entire region is unclear. Furthermore, 

at sites that do show a response, the extent of the SO4 response to drought has not 

been compared. Therefore, questions still remain regarding the significance of this 

process at the regional scale. The aim of this study was to address these questions 

to better understand the regional significance of drought on S biogeochemistry. 

Long-term climate, discharge and stream chemistry data are included in this 

study from 22 watershed research sites throughout the southeast Canada/northeast 

U.S. region. Hubbard Brook and Fernow EFs are involved in this study.

Application of R&D results—

Results suggest that drought has a substantial effect on temporal trends in annual 

SO4 concentrations across the northeastern United States/southeastern Canada 

region and that the presence of wetlands in a catchment is an important driver of 

SO4 drought response. This information can help explain the apparent response (or 

lack of response) to air pollution controls. This information is useful to policymakers 

and to scientists modeling pollution response by ecosystems, and by land managers. 

20. Integrating Landscape-Scale Forest Measurements 

Objectives—

How do spatially extensive, but coarsely resolved, measurements made through 

remote sensing and forest inventories compare to the spatially intensive and highly 

resolved measurements made at intensive monitoring sites such as those in the 

AmeriFlux network? How do measurements made using independent methods over 

disturbance and recovery cycles, such as those resulting from insect infestations, 

fire, or harvesting, compare over annual and multi-year time scales?

As part of the North American Carbon Program, we are integrating intensive 

ground-based measurements, remote sensing, and modeling approaches at seven 

landscape-scale research sites across the United States to compare and contrast 

estimates of carbon stocks and fluxes. Each study site consists of a diverse landscape that reflects the effects of natural disturbances or forest management activities on carbon stocks and productivity. Flux tower locations include Bartlett EF in 

New Hampshire, Silas Little EF, the Cedar Bridge site and Fort Dix in New Jersey, 

and the Marcell EF in Minnesota. Other sites include a clearcut and mid-rotation 

Loblolly pine plantation in North Carolina, Glacier Lakes Ecosystem Experiments 

Site in Wyoming, and Niwot Ridge in Colorado. A network of plots centered around 
148

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

each eddy flux tower includes measurements of carbon pools, soil respiration, 

litterfall, and branchfall fluxes. The intensive ground-based biological data includes 

16 nested Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) style plots arranged in a grid pattern 

within a 1 km2 area which are embedded within plots located in a 9 km2 area. This 

project involves a number of experimental forests that have eddy flux and biometric 

measurements in place (these include Silas Little, Marcell, and Bartlett EFs and 

Howland Cooperating EF). This project also integrates with a number of sites in the 

SRS, and RMRS (GLEES). 

Application of R&D results—

The main products of this research include precise statistical estimates and maps 

of carbon stocks and productivity for a variety of forest landscape conditions, 

improved process-based models for simulating forest carbon dynamics at stand to 

ecoregion scales, and decision-support tools for land managers interested in carbon 

management. By estimating these for managed or disturbed forest stands in various 

stages of development, we would improve the ability of land managers to update 

or project stand-level inventories of carbon stocks for reporting to greenhouse gas 

registries. Reference data from these sites can be used by the scientific, policy, and 

land management communities. This project is evolving into a larger network of 

landscape-scale monitoring sites, including the two new sites in Mexico. 

21. Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER)

Objectives—

The LTER Network is a collaborative effort involving more than 1,800 scientists 

and students investigating ecological processes over long temporal and broad spatial 

scales. The Network promotes synthesis and comparative research across sites and 

ecosystems and among other related national and international research programs.

Participating sites are: Baltimore (cooperating EF) and Hubbard Brook EF. 

Application of R&D results— 

LTERs provide the scientific community, policymakers, and society with the 

knowledge and predictive understanding necessary to conserve, protect, and manage the nation’s ecosystems, their biodiversity, and the services they provide.

22. Long-Term Soil Productivity Study (LTSP)

Objectives—

• Determine what factors controll forest site productivity.

• Assess how forests can be managed sustainably over the long term.

• Develop soil monitoring standards for national forest managers.

• Evaluate forest practices to enhance productivity.
149

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

LTSP research focuses on the joint role of soil porosity and site organic matter and their effect on the site processes that control productivity. This study is 

being carried out through a standard series of experimental treatments designed to 

create varying degrees of stress and to provide measures of biological response and 

soil recovery. The work centers on national forest lands in the United States and 

dedicated sites in Canada covering major forest and soil types. Nationally, many of 

these research sites are located in experimental forests. There are three LTSP study 

sites, and most are affiliated with experimental forests: West Virginia (Fernow EF, 

Middle Mountain), Great Lakes (Marcell EF, plus national forest land in Minnesota 

and Michigan), and Missouri (Sinkin EF). 

Application of R&D results—

The LTSP is an international study, providing dedicated research sites and opportunities in a variety of forest types. The outcomes of this research are of particular 

interest to national forest managers (indeed, the National Forest System was the 

original partner in establishing these study sites), and to land managers interested 

in managing forests over the long run. These sites are also the location for very 

intensive experimental monitoring, and the national level effort at collaboration in 

publications and research opportunities continues to be vital. 

23. Long-Term Stand Responses to Silviculture 

Objectives—

This study’s research objectives are to (1) quantify the influence of stand structure, 

composition, site characteristics, and climatic factors on response to silvicultural 

treatment within and between forest types represented by selected EFs; and (2) 

identify (through variance components analysis) the sources of variability in this 

growth response. Ecological questions are: How do growth responses to silvicultural treatment differ at the regional, EF, treatment, stand and/or plot levels? Can 

this variability be explained with existing stand, site, or climatic data? This project 

would increase collaboration among EF managers in the Northern Research Station, and improve the accessibility of high-quality, long-term EF data through the 

creation of a relational database for a subset of studies on selected EFs. 

Application of R&D results—

Results from this study would provide a working hypothesis concerning the 

variability of growth response from geographically separate stands with similar 

silvicultural prescriptions. This study is important to resource managers applying silvicultural treatments in a variety of forest types, and would improve the 

consistency of results by identifying sources of variation in treatment response. In 
150

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

addition, the associated multiple-EF “pilot” database would test the feasibility of a 

standardized format for EF data, and increase future collaboration and data availability. Collaborators include University of Maine faculty and a graduate student 

and University of Minnesota faculty. 

This project is being conducted in the Northern Research Station and includes 

the Birch Lake Study and Argonne and Dukes EFs in Wisconsin, Michigan, and 

Minnesota; the Fernow EF in West Virginia; the Kane EF in Pennsylvania; the 

Penobscot EF in Maine; the Sinkin EF in Missouri; and the Vinton Furnace ESF in 

Ohio. The study also includes other participating station scientists. 

24. Quantifying Uncertainty in Ecosystem Studies (QUEST)

Objectives—

Ecosystem nutrient budgets often report values for pools and fluxes without any 

indication of uncertainty, which makes it difficult to evaluate the significance of 

findings or make comparisons across systems. QUEST is a research network that 

has evolved around the idea that uncertainty analysis should be an accepted and 

expected practice in the construction of ecosystem budgets.

Right now we are conducting a cross-site comparison of input-output budgets in 

several watersheds throughout the United States. We are currently funded through 

an NSF LTER working group with the participation of 12 long-term study sites, 

and we also have submitted a proposal to NSF to develop a Research Coordination 

Network. http://www.quantifyinguncertainty.org/.

Principal investigators: USDA Forest Service, SUNY-ESF, Plymouth State 

University, U.S. Geological Survey, and Cary Institute. 

QUEST Collaborators: USDA Forest Service, Cary Institute, Oregon State University, Harvard University, SUNY-ESF, University of New Hampshire, University 

of Colorado, and U.S. Geological Survey.

The following EFRs are involved: Hubbard Brook, Marcell, and Fernow. Other 

EFRs from other stations include: Luquillo, H.J. Andrews, and Coweeta. 

Application of R&D results—

Collaborators represent forested sites (generally forests, but not exclusively) with 

long-term ecosystem data, in particular input-output fluxes. The results of this 

working group would have implications for policymakers, for other research 

scientists, and for land managers, as we put confidence bounds on our currently 

unbounded ecosystem nutrient budgets. 
151

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

25. U.S. Forest Service Management Intensity Demonstration Plots

Objectives—

Originally, the Management Intensity Demonstration (MID) plots were installed 

over a half century ago on experimental forests throughout the northeast and 

north central United States to serve as stand-alone demonstrations of forest 

management practices rated as “excellent,” “good,” “fair,” and “poor.” Today the 

MIDs represent a rare opportunity to synthesize forest development across forest 

types and ecoregions following a range of forest management practices. The 

original value-laden treatment names have been more descriptively named (i.e., 

using silvicultural terminology) because the preconceptions about each practice 

were overly simplistic. Because the MIDs were small and used for demonstration 

purposes, treatments and measurements have been continued to the present in 

most locations.

Application of R&D results—

The results of this study would help identify how forests respond to a range of 

management choices across a broad region. In addition, this work represents an 

important advance toward quantifying forest response to altered environmental 

conditions related to atmospheric deposition, invasive species, herbivory, and 

climate change. Although these factors are likely confounded at any one site, the 

broad regional and long-term nature of this project would better allow us to isolate 

the effects of environmental change. 

This project was initiated in 2008. The Bartlett, Dukes, Fernow, Kane, and 

Penobscot EFs, and Vinton Furnace Experimental State Forest, in New Hampshire, 

Michigan, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maine, and Ohio respectively, contributed 

data for initial exploratory analysis. Partners willing to contribute and participate in 

the effort were identified at each location. Data management issues were identified 

and similarities and differences in treatments were described. Preliminary analysis 

focused on the growth rates and biomass accumulation of different forest types 

following exploitive harvest. The network of willing scientists, active experimental 

forests, and similar MID areas represents a unique opportunity to continue this 

effort in ways that would address critical environmental issues. Supplementary 

funding, through R&D or external (grant) sources, would likely be required to 

make significant new progress.
152

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

26. Systematic Experimental Forest Inventory Data as a Signal 

of Forest Change

Objectives—

This research and development project has three overarching objectives to determine:

• How many EFRs have had systematic inventories conducted at least twice.

• If data from systematic inventories of EFRs at the landscape scale can be 

used to make thoughtful observations about long-term changes in vegetative communities.

• If data from systematic inventories of EFRs can bridge the gap between 

FIA-level estimates of stocks and accumulation rates of carbon and sitespecific estimates of carbon stocks and accumulation rates.

At least two EFRs were inventoried using a systematic sampling scheme at or 

about the time of EFR establishment (Kane EF and Bartlett EF). In both these 

forests, the inventory plots have been remeasured at least once, usually fairly 

recently. Leak and Yamasaki (2010) and Leak and Smith (1996) examined the 

remeasurement data from the Bartlett EF to determine long-term trends in species 

composition and forest change; more recently, Hoover (in review) used data from 

both forests to detect patterns of carbon accumulation throughout the 60+ year 

period between early measurements and remeasurement. Hoover (in review) found 

that the carbon accumulation patterns were strongly influenced by age (time since 

last disturbance) in both forests, paralleling the observations others have made 

about the maturation of the eastern deciduous forest’s role as an important carbon 

sink in global circulation models.

These preliminary results suggest great promise in expanding this kind of 

review to more forests where similar systematic inventories may have been undertaken, and in further investigation of the existing data.

Application of R&D results— 

The study has potential value to both policymakers and land and resource 

managers. Detection of change in patterns of forest growth, species composition, 

and structure at a scale coarser than an experimental plot, but fine enough to 

incorporate detailed metadata about natural and management disturbance patterns, may be invaluable for detecting climate change and other signals of forest 

change and accommodation.

Partners currently include only the Bartlett and Kane EFs. Other partnerships 

are expected to emerge.
153

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

27. Long-Term Regeneration Research for the Development of 

the Forest Vegetation Simulator

Objectives—

This research and development project has three overarching objectives, to determine:

• If data from long-term studies of natural regeneration in eastern forests can 

be synthesized into a common format and set of models that are compatible 

with the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS).

• If long-term data from the Forest Inventory and Analysis Pennsylvania 

Regeneration Study can be used to develop a model for imputing advance 

regeneration from overstory attributes, and be calibrated for other eastern 

forests types.

• If both the advance regeneration predictions and regeneration models 

can be integrated with predictions of climate change impact on eastern 

tree species to improve local projections and those used in national forest 

long-term planning.

Many EFRs in the eastern United States host studies of natural regeneration 

processes. Loftis (Southern Research Station [SRS]) developed a regeneration 

modeling framework to integrate such studies into predictors of future stands based 

on a stand inventory of regeneration sources before a disturbance. The SRS and the 

FVS team are linking regeneration models (e.g., Loftis-type) to FVS, widely used in 

both project and forest-level planning. The question driving this suite of studies is 

whether these regeneration studies, with a wide variety of data formats, can be integrated into the same modeling framework based on universal ecological principles 

as expressed in competitive hierarchies of regeneration sources to predict future 

forests in the eastern region. This research seeks to identify and quantify emergent, 

unifying principles of regeneration processes using long-term data from EFRs.

Application of R&D results— 

The study is of immediate importance to national forests of the Eastern United 

States required by forest planners to simulate forest change using model stands 

over periods longer than a typical rotation. This project would allow planners to 

replace local expert assumptions with research-based models of regeneration. As the 

regeneration models are integrated with imputation models for advance regeneration 

and models of likely species by habitat impacts of climate change, the importance 

of the study and the breadth of use would increase. Forest planners and policymakers would benefit from this study, and society at large would benefit from improved 

understanding of future forests leading to better planning for adaptation and mitigation. Partners include several eastern EFRs, notably including the Bent Creek EF 
154

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

(SRS), the Bartlett, Massabesic, Kane, Sinkin, and Fernow EFRs (NRS), the Forest 

Management Service Center, FVS staff, NRS FIA, Virginia Tech, University of Missouri, and Pennsylvania State University. Other partnerships are expected to emerge.

28. Decomposition on the Forest Floor: Soil Productivity Studies 

Objectives—

Soil organic matter is key to maintaining site productivity because of its roles in 

soil water availability, nutrient supply, soil aggregation, and disease incidence or 

prevention. A number of studies have shown a strong relationship between organic 

matter decomposition rates and site productivity. Forest management practices 

can greatly impact organic matter decomposition, which could affect tree growth 

and site productivity. Consequently, organic matter decomposition is being used 

as an index of forest management effects (both positive and negative) in long-term 

soil productivity studies being conducted in various parts of North America and 

Canada. Of the various types of organic substrates that can be used in a decomposition study, wood seems best suited for mineral soil. Wood is a normal component 

of mineral soil (e.g., coarse roots), and the slow decomposition rate of wood allows 

it to remain in the soil for at least several years. A number of study sites investigating wood decomposition have been established across the United States, Canada, 

and internationally. However, few of these sites exist within the Northern Research 

Station. This research would take place at the three NRS LTSP sites, the Baltimore 

LTER site, and a wetland restoration site (ARS) in eastern Maryland. The objectives of this study are to:

1. Evaluate the effects of soil chemical, physical, and biological properties on 

wood decomposition rates and microbial decay patterns across a range of 

soil types and climatic regimes within the Northern Research Station. 

2. Estimate the impacts of a variety of land management practices (e.g., timber harvesting, site preparation, urbanization, and wetland restoration) on 

wood decomposition in the forest floor and mineral soil within the Northern 

Research Station. 

3. Assess the relationship of microbial diversity to the rate and degree of wood 

decomposition under varying soil moisture, temperature, and nutrient conditions within the Northern Research Station.

4. Provide input to carbon sequestration and cycling model of the Northern 

Research Station. 

Application of R&D results—

The information would be useful in calibrating carbon cycling models, and would 

also address local research questions about decomposition and site productivity. 
155

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

29. Vegetation Dynamics Across EFRs

Objectives—

Research questions and hypotheses include: How has plant species dominance 

changed across EFRs over time in undisturbed and disturbed sites, in the overstory 

and understory (native/nonnative species)?

• We expect greater change at lower latitudes: higher disturbance, higher 

temperatures, and increased rainfall.

• We expect introduced species to be more prevalent in disturbed sites.

Additional question: What is the variation within and among sites? This would 

address alpha (species) and beta (community or ecosystem) diversity.

Application of R&D results—

This research would provide information about vegetation dynamics and the effects 

of climatic gradients and change agents at multiple temporal and spatial scales, thus 

informing management and policy.

EFs participating in this project include: 

• Hubbard Brook 

• Silas Little 

• Fernow 

• Marcell 

• Baltimore Ecosystem Study (cooperating EF) 

• Coweeta 

• H.J. Andrews 

• Bonanza Creek 

• Santee

• Crossett 

• Fraser 

• Niwot 

• Luquillo 

• Tenderfoot 

• San Dimas 

• HETF 

• Caspar Creek 

• Sierra Ancha 
156

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

30. Water Supply Sensitivity and Ecosystem Resilience to Land 

Use Change, Climate Change, and Climate Variability

Objectives—

Use data from long-term climate and hydrology studies in the LTER and related 

networks to assess ecosystem water use responses and resilience to climate variability and the effects of many processes on water supplies and society. 

This study uses long-term climate and stream flow data from a number of 

LTER, EFR, USGS and other networks, and from sites in Canada, to assess 

ecosystem water yield sensitivity to past land use change and climate variability 

since 1950. The following are participants: Fernow EF, Hubbard Brook EF, and 

Marcell EF.

Specifically, questions asked were:

1. How are potential and actual evapotranspiration related?

2. How is streamflow correlated with long-term climate indices?

3. What trends have occurred since 1950 in temperature, precipitation, 

streamflow, and runoff rations?

4. What are the ecological and social implications of observed and predicted 

changes?

Application of R&D results—

This study used existing, available long-term data to evaluate questions related 

to climate change and land use change effects on streamflow and climate. This 

information would be useful for forest land managers within (and outside) the 

Forest Service as they make decisions about managing forests to provide clean, 

abundant water. This project also provides information based on experiences of a 

large number of collaborators working across agency boundaries to bring forward 

such a synthesis. 

31. International Cooperative Program on Assessment and 

Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests

Objectives—

The main objective of the proposed network is to strengthen the role of EFRs by 

providing more internationally standardized data that would benefit the entire EFR 

network. The network would contribute to a better understanding of the relationships between the condition of forest ecosystems and anthropogenic (in particular 

air pollution) as well as natural stress factors through intensive monitoring on a 

number of selected permanent observation plots and to study the development of 

important forest ecosystems. Further, the network would provide a deeper insight 

into the interactions between the various components of forest ecosystems by 
157

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

compiling available information from related studies, and in close cooperation with 

the ICP on modeling and mapping, would contribute to the calculation of critical 

level/loads and their existence in forest ecosystems. 

Application of R&D results—

Eleven EFRs and seven LTERS were selected in FY2007 for this study. Research 

from this study would improve collaboration with other environmental monitoring programs and would contribute to the monitoring activities to other aspects of 

relevance for forest policy at national and global levels, such as effects of climate 

changes on forests, sustainable forest management, and biodiversity in forests. 

The network would also provide policymakers and the general public with relevant 

information to make informed decisions.

32. Long-Term Inter-Site Decomposition Experiment Team (LIDET)

Objectives—

The primary objective of this study is to examine the control that substrate quality and macroclimate have on patterns of long-term decomposition and nitrogen 

accumulation in above- and belowground fine litter. Of particular interest would be 

the degree to which these two factors control the formation of stable organic matter 

and nitrogen after extensive decay.

Application of R&D results—

Understanding ecological systems on the global scale would require an increase in 

preplanned, long-term, multi-site studies. This leaf, wood, and root decomposition 

study is being carried out at 28 LTER sites that span a wide array of ecosystems, 

from tundra to warm desert to short-grass steppe to moist tropical forest. The duration of the study is designed to be approximately 10 years at temperate zone sites 

and approximately 3 years at tropical zone sites because of higher decomposition 

rates. The same decomposing materials, litter bags, and study design are used at 

all sites to facilitate inter-site comparisons. A team composed of field collaborators 

oversees the study at particular sites; modelers predict C, N, and P dynamics and 

validate models from the field study; and a central analysis group performs chemical analysis, data management, and preliminary analysis. 

33. Lotic Inter-Site Nitrogen Experiment (LINXII)

Objectives—

This experiment involves an intensive, inter-site study of the fate of nitrate 

in streams. Research would evaluate whether streams are important sites of 

N retention in the landscape and, more importantly, how human disturbances 

affect that retention. This experiment and its measurements would allow the 
158

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

testing a variety of hypotheses dealing with the impacts of human disturbances 

on streams, including effects on channel morphology, hydraulics, biological 

activity, and N retention.

Application of R&D results—

Proposed research integrates across a large range of spatial scales, from the 

microscale to stream reaches to landscapes of diverse biomes. The research would 

have broader implications to society by explicitly evaluating the effects of human 

disturbance on N retention in stream networks, contributing the knowledge needed 

for a more sustainable management of watersheds. 

34. Maps and Locals (MALS)

Objectives—

The MALS project is a collaborative effort to develop common methods for 

research on social-ecological systems at the LTER network scale. The project 

seeks to research changing social-ecological systems using a mixed-methods, 

comparative approach. MALS will address a challenge for both applied and 

theoretical ecology of discerning past human effects on ecological systems 

and distinguishing anthropogenic from non-anthropogenic drivers of change. 

Although most LTER sites have assembled historical data on land cover, climate, 

vegetation, and other ecological attributes, less is known about historical resource 

management practices and other human influences. In many cases, social data 

are available for human communities of LTER regions, but are not well compiled. 

The objective in this collaborative research project is to develop methods and 

capacity for research into social-ecological systems both at individual sites and at 

the network scale.

Application of R&D results—

A cross-site collaborative effort would use spatial representation of land cover and 

land use to identify patterns of landscape change in regions in and around LTER sites; 

integrate local ecological knowledge (LEK) and other existing social data into theories and models of ecological change and their implications for human livelihoods. 

35. Engaging Arts and Humanities

Objectives—

The H.J. Andrews EF Long-Term Ecological Research group; the Spring Creek 

Project for Ideas, Nature, and the Written Word; and the U.S. Forest Service are 

collaborating in a program that brings creative writers, humanists, and ecosystem scientists together at the Andrews and in other natural venues in the Pacific 
159

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Northwest. This program, called Long-Term Ecological Reflections, supports 

writers and humanists in their efforts to explore human/nature relationships as 

they evolve over many lifetimes.

The Spring Creek Project, an independently funded program in Oregon State 

University’s Department of Philosophy, is dedicated to bringing together the 

wisdom of the environment sciences, the clarity of philosophical analysis, and the 

creative expressive power of the written word, to find new ways to understand and 

re-imagine our relation to the natural world. Dr. Kathleen Dean Moore, professor 

of philosophy and Spring Creek’s director, is author of Riverwalking, Holdfast, and 

Pine Island Paradox, books of essays on nature and family.

36. Detritus Input and Removal Treatments (DIRT)

Objectives—

The DIRT is a long-term study of controls on soil organic matter formation. The 

goal is to assess how rates and sources of plant litter inputs control the accumulation and dynamics of organic matter and nutrients in forest soils over decadal 

time scales. 

Application of R&D results—

Results from field data and inter-site soil incubations suggest that aboveground 

inputs exert a stronger influence on soil organic matter (SOM) mass, but root inputs 

have a stronger effect on its quality. The pool of turning over N is slow, having 

a different dynamic than the faster mineralizable carbon (C) pool. Metabolism 

of roots and rhizosphere organisms is more temperature-sensitive than bulk soil 

organisms. Exclusion of roots had a greater effect on microbial processes than 

either doubling or excluding aboveground inputs. Declining decomposition rate 

accompanied by increasing soil C in the double annual aboveground litter treatment 

suggests long-term nonlinear changes in soil microbial activity, which could lead 

to increased long-term soil C storage beyond expectations. Changes in above- and 

belowground plant inputs and their influence on temperature-controlled processes 

would be significant in determining the effects of a warmer world on the net flux of 

carbon from soils to atmosphere.

37. Nutrient Network (NutNet)

Objectives—

NutNet is a globally replicated experiment investigating the effects of resources 

and consumption on ecosystem processes. Two of the most pervasive human 

impacts on ecosystems are alterations of global nutrient budgets and changes 

in the abundance and identity of consumers. Fossil fuel combustion and agri-
160

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

cultural fertilization have doubled and quintupled, respectively, global pools of 

nitrogen and phosphorus relative to preindustrial levels. Concurrently, habitat 

loss and degradation, and selective hunting and fishing disproportionately 

remove consumers from food webs. At the same time, humans are adding 

consumers to food webs for endpoints such as conservation, recreation, and 

agriculture, as well as accidental introductions of invasive consumer species. 

In spite of the global impacts of these human activities, there have been no 

globally coordinated experiments to quantify the general impacts on ecological systems. The Nutrient Network is a grassroots research effort to address 

these questions with a coordinated research network comprised of more than 40 

grassland sites worldwide.

Application of R&D results—

Research questions for NutNet include: 

a. How general is the current understanding of productivity-diversity relationships?

b. To what extent are plant production and diversity co-limited by multiple 

nutrients in herbaceous-dominated communities?

c. Under what conditions do grazers or fertilization control plant biomass, 

diversity, and composition?

The goal of NutNet is to collect data from a broad range of sites in a consistent manner to allow direct comparisons of environment-productivity-diversity 

relationships among systems around the world. This is currently occurring at 

each site in the network and, when these data are compiled, would provide new 

insights into several important, unanswered questions in ecology. Additionally, 

to implement a cross-site experiment requiring only minimal investment of time 

and resources by each investigator, but quantifying community and ecosystem 

responses in a wide range of herbaceous-dominated ecosystems (i.e., desert 

grassland to arctic tundra).

38. Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL )

Objectives—

SNOTEL is an automated system of snowpack and related climate sensors 

operated by NRCS. There are over 600 SNOTEL sites in 13 states, including 

Alaska. The sites are generally located in remote high-mountain watersheds. 

All SNOTEL sites measure snow water content, accumulated precipitation, and 

air temperature. Some sites also measure snow depth, soil moisture and temperature, windspeed, solar radiation, humidity, and atmospheric pressure. These 

data are used to forecast yearly water supplies, predict floods, and for general 

climate research.
161

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Application of R&D results—

Installation of SNOTEL began in the mid-1970s. Its use in climate forecasting was 

not originally envisioned, but it has become the standard climate data for western 

U.S. locations that are elevated sufficiently to have at least a seasonal snowpack. 

With 50 to 80 percent of the water supply in the West arriving in the form of snow, 

data on snowpack provide critical information to decisionmakers and water managers throughout the West. SNOTEL provides a reliable and cost-effective means of 

collecting snowpack and other meteorological data needed to produce water supply 

forecasts and support resource management activities.

39. Basic Meteorological Station

Objectives—

A basic meteorological station contains instruments and equipment for observing 

atmospheric conditions to provide information for weather forecasts and to study 

the weather and climate. The measurements taken include temperature, barometric 

pressure, humidity, wind speed, wind direction, and precipitation amounts. 

Application of R&D results—

A variety of land-based meteorological station networks have been set up globally. 

Some of these are basic to analyzing weather fronts and pressure systems, while 

others are more regional in nature.

40. Long-Term Ecosystem Productivity Program (LTEP)

Objectives—

Concerns expressed by scientists, managers, and citizens about the potential impact 

of management activities on long-term productivity led to the formation of the 

LTEP research program in 1990. A major component of the LTEP program is a 

network of sites where field experiments are conducted. 

Application of R&D results—

Many important questions concerning long-term productivity were evaluated to 

develop the experimental design. Two general hypotheses were thought to have 

a continuing, long-term effect on forest development and productivity, and could 

be addressed in a large, stand-scale field experiment. The first of these states that 

early- and late-successional species affect productivity differently than do mid-seral 

species. Modern plantation management has sharply reduced the time that earlyand late-seral species occupy the land relative to historical patterns. The second 

general hypothesis is that removal of organic matter from a stand affects long-term 

productivity. Concerns about potential negative effects of organic matter removal 

on nutrient supply, soil structure, and wildlife lie behind this hypothesis. 
162

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

The study is designed to evaluate how to sustain long-term ecosystem function 

and productivity by examining the interrelationships among species composition, 

soil properties and organic matter over several rotations. The treatments are being 

assessed and compared in many ways by scientists and resource managers representing biological, physical, and economic and social sciences. Vegetation, wildlife, 

soils, special forest products, climate, economics, public perception, and special 

concerns are being examined.

41. Forest Ecosystem Response to Regeneration Treatments for 

Upland Hardwoods (Sustaining Oaks)

Objectives—

Upland, mixed-oak forests occupy more than 50 percent of the forested land base in 

the central hardwood region of the United States, where oaks play a pivotal role in 

forest ecology, wildlife ecology, and economics. Yet the sustainability of oak forests 

is threatened by widespread oak decline and regeneration failure. Widespread oak 

decline is threatening eastern U.S. oak forests. The restoration of southern forest 

ecosystems has become increasingly important to ensure future water quality, 

wildlife habitat, and other ecosystem services provided by forests. Restoration and 

management provides landowners and managers with knowledge and tools to help 

restore, enhance, and manage forests in a changing environment.

Application of R&D results—

A study of the ecosystem response (e.g., regeneration response of oak and other 

hardwood species, and plant diversity) to treatments that alter light and hardwood 

competition is being conducted. Additionally, wildlife response to these oak regeneration 

treatments is also being conducted. Results would be used to develop guidelines for sustainable oak ecosystem management within southern upland hardwood forests, and help 

ensure that these forests continue to provide valuable economic and ecological services. 

42. U.S. Regional Climate Reference Network (USRCRN) Station

Objectives—

The lack of high-quality surface measurements of precipitation and air temperature 

historically has hampered the ability of climate scientists to fully characterize the 

national and regional climate signals with confidence. The USRCRN provides the 

nation with a climate-quality benchmark observing system for real-time measurements of air temperature and precipitation that meets national commitments to 

monitor climate of the U.S. for the next 50 to 100 years. The USRCRN also provides 

a platform opportunity to add additional sensors (i.e., soil moisture, soil temperature, 

relative humidity, wind, pressure) for future climate monitoring activities.
163

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Application of R&D results—

The USRCRN consists of 114 stations in the 48 contiguous states and an additional 

seven stations installed in extreme environments in Alaska, Hawaii, and Canada. 

Each station is strategically placed away from urban and suburban influences to 

avoid any possible misinterpretation of changes observed. The USRCRN reports 

multiple observations per hour for temperature and precipitation. This temporal 

resolution of the data provides additional climate information, such as precipitation 

intensity and duration of extreme events. 

43. Wood Decomposition Experiment

Objectives—

This study is designed to examine the control that substrate quality and climate 

have on patterns of long-term decomposition and nitrogen accumulation in aboveand belowground fine litter. Of particular interest would be the degree to which 

these two factors control the formation of stable organic matter and nitrogen after 

extensive decay.

Application of R&D results—

The 28 sites involved in the study cover all major biomes in North America. The 

major factors considered in this experiment are site, species of and type of litter 

(leaves vs. roots vs. dowels) and time. Twenty-eight sites, representing a wide array 

of moisture and temperature conditions, would be used for litter incubations. 

44. Remote Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Stress (RAFES)

Objectives—

The southern United States has experienced significant droughts over the past 

several years that have increased the susceptibility of southern forest ecosystems 

to insect outbreaks, disease, and wildfire. Weather data collected with traditional 

approaches provide an indirect measure of drought or temperature stress; however, 

the significance of short-term or prolonged climate-related stress varies considerably across the landscape as topography, elevations, edaphic (soil) conditions, and 

antecedent conditions vary. This limits the capacity of land managers to anticipate 

and initiate ecosystem-specific management activities that could offset the impacts 

of climate-related forest stress. In addition, drier and warmer conditions predicted 

with climate change models are likely to significantly affect forest ecosystems over 

the next several decades. 

Application of R&D results—

Decision support tools are needed that allow fine-scale monitoring of stress 

conditions in forest ecosystems in real time to help land managers evaluate 
164

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

ecosystem specific response strategies. Researchers are developing a stress 

monitoring and decision support system (RAFES) across multiple sites and 

ecosystems in the Eastern United States that: (1) provides remote data capture 

of environmental parameters that quantify climate-related forest stress across 

the network of sites, (2) links remotely captured data with physiologically-based 

indices of tree water stress, and (3) provides a PC-based analytical tool that 

allows land managers to monitor and assess the severity of climate-related stress 

in specific ecosystems. 

45. Groundwater Survey 

Objectives—

The use of appropriate methods, models, tools, techniques to investigate, inventory, 

assess or quantify the quality and the volume of ground water resources underlying 

NFS lands is very important in achieving success in such endeavors. Temporal and 

three-dimensional spatial scales are also critical elements in these processes.

46. Longleaf Pine Restoration and Ecosystem Productivity

Objectives—

Reliable restoration and management systems for sustaining longleaf pine ecosystems are needed. Longleaf pine ecosystems once occupied over 90 million acres 

in the South. Today less than 3 million acres remain, with many of the remaining 

acres in an unhealthy state, owing partially to the exclusion of fire. The longleaf 

ecosystem figured prominently in the cultural and economic development of the 

South. Today, these forests and landscapes represent significant components of 

the region’s ecological diversity and offer new economic opportunities for many 

private landowners. They also provide essential habitat for many rare animals and 

plants. Restoration efforts at various spatial scales are now underway on former 

longleaf sites. In addition, plantings have recently increased on private lands in 

the former range as a result of voluntary incentives and improved seedling and 

planting technology. A major impediment to restoration and management efforts 

is the lack of reliable models and supporting databases which can accurately 

predict the regeneration, growth, yield and mortality of longleaf under a range 

of site conditions and management regimes which include even-aged, two-aged, 

uneven-aged, and also natural and artificial regeneration systems. Also lacking 

is an understanding of how fire regulates ecological processes and structures in 

longleaf ecosystems and how this knowledge can be translated into prescriptions 

and user guidelines.
165

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Application of R&D results—

Three areas of research need to be studied: 

(1) Interruption of natural fire regimes in the Southeast has resulted in alteration 

of native plant abundance to a degree that threatens long-term longleaf pine ecosystem sustainability. These altered ecosystems have become increasingly vulnerable 

to destruction by catastrophic fire and invasion by noxious weeds and undesirable 

woody plants. Restoring periodic fire as a disturbance agent is fundamental to 

the ecological restoration and maintenance of longleaf pine ecosystems. Reliable 

information concerning the appropriate fire frequencies and seasons needs to be 

determined for the wide range of site conditions. 

(2) The reintroduction of fire through prescribed burning is frequently proposed as the principal means for restoring and maintaining these ecosystems. 

However, if ecosystem degradation has progressed beyond key biophysical 

thresholds, then effective restoration would likely not be achieved simply by the 

reintroduction of fire. Fire would also be ineffective in restoring the longleaf pine 

ecosystem wherever its fundamental elements of composition are absent. Therefore, restoring healthy longleaf pine ecosystems on sites that have been degraded 

beyond key biophysical thresholds would likely require mechanical, chemical and/

or biological treatments. These techniques may often be needed as initial treatments as a prerequisite for the safe eventual reintroduction of prescribed fire and 

need to be evaluated.

(3) Developing silvicultural systems that successfully regenerate longleaf pine 

seedlings is crucial to the long-term viability of longleaf pine management and to 

the survival of the ecosystem itself. Artificial regeneration may not always be an 

economically viable option for lands receiving lower-intensity management. 

47.Free-Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Experiment

Objectives—

Free-Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment (FACE) is a method used by ecologists and 

plant biologists that raises the concentration of CO2 in a specified area and allows 

the response of plant growth to be measured. Experiments using FACE are required 

because most studies looking at the effect of elevated CO2 concentrations have been 

conducted in labs and where there are often factors other than CO2 concentration 

affecting growth, for example, the pot effect. Measuring the effect of elevated CO2

using FACE is a better way of estimating how plant growth would change in the 

future as the CO2 concentration rises in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic 

emissions. FACE also allows the effect of elevated CO2 on plants that cannot be 

grown in small spaces (trees for example) to be measured.
166

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Application of R&D results—

FACE circles have been used across parts of the United States in temperate forests and also in stands of aspen in Italy. The method is also used in agricultural 

research. For example, FACE circles have been used to measure the response of 

soybean plants to increased levels of ozone and carbon dioxide at research facilities 

at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. FACE technologies have yet to 

be implemented in old-growth forests, tropical forests, or boreal forests, but future 

research projects would probably include these areas. TasFACE is investigating the 

effects of elevated CO2 on a native grassland in Tasmania, Australia. The National 

Wheat FACE array is presently being established in Horsham, Victoria, Australia as 

a joint project of the Victorian Department of Primary Industries and the University 

of Melbourne.

A FACE experiment began at Duke University in June 1994. The Blackwood 

Division of the Duke Forest contains the Forest-Atmosphere Carbon Transfer and 

Storage facility. This consists of four free-air CO2 enrichment plots, which provide higher levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration, and four plots that provide 

ambient CO2 control. There have been 253 publications reporting on the findings 

of the experiment.

48. Smithsonian Global Program for Long-Term Large-Scale 

Forest Research 

Objectives—

The Center for Tropical Forest Science (CTFS) is a global network of forest research 

plots committed to the study of tropical and temperate forest function and diversity. 

The multi-institutional network comprises more than 40 forest research plots across 

the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Europe, with a strong focus on tropical regions. 

CTFS monitors the growth and survival of about 4.5 million trees of approximately 

8,500 species.

CTFS conducts long-term, large-scale research on forests around the world to:

• Increase scientific understanding of forest ecosystems

• Guide sustainable forest management and natural resource policy

• Monitor the impacts of climate change

• Build capacity in forest science

Ecologists at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute established the first 

plot on Barro Colorado Island, Panama, in 1980. There they pioneered long-term 

tree-census techniques that scientists replicated throughout the tropics, creating a 

network of forest research plots that would eventually become the Center for Tropical Forest Science. Before 1980, scientists had never attempted to measure tropical 
167

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

forests so intensively and at such a large scale. Today the scale and intensity of the 

CTFS research program remain unprecedented in forest science.

CTFS plots involve hundreds of scientists from more than 75 institutions 

worldwide. Individual forest plots are led and managed in each country by one or 

more partner institutions. CTFS coordinates plots in Asia through partnerships with 

host-country institutions and the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University.

Common plot structure and scientific methodology unify the CTFS network. In 

each plot, which are typically 25 to 50 hectares, all free-standing trees with a diameter at breast height of at least 1 cm are tagged, measured, identified to species, and 

recensused approximately every 5 years. Because each plot follows the same methodology, scientists can directly compare data collected from different forests around 

the world and detect patterns that would otherwise be impossible to recognize.

Part 2A. Ideas from R&D Scientists for Potential Future 

Cross-EFR Research and Monitoring (table 8).

1. EFR Meta-Database of Site Information and Content 

Objectives—

To construct a searchable database of EFR site information and research activities. 

This database would enable EFR scientists to better understand who is doing what 

research in what location, share expertise and data, conduct syntheses, and better 

address requests for proposals (RFPs) as they become available. This is not a data 

repository. Further efforts, similar to those of the NSF LTER sites, are also needed 

to make high-quality EFR data readily available to EFR scientists and the public.

Application of R&D results—

The EFR network is perhaps unparalleled in the world relative to its number of sites 

(more than 80), geographic distribution (continental United States, Puerto Rico, U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and Hawaii), long-term history of research and monitoring activities 

(more than 100 years), number and quality of scientists associated with the sites, 

both Forest Service scientists and collaborating scientists from universities and other 

research institutions (hundreds of people), land ownership (more than 600,000 ha), 

and relatively stable funding for scientist salaries and site operating costs (annual support). This network of sites offers a tremendous opportunity to serve as a continentalscale observatory network for local, regional, and national environmental and societal 

change. However, to realize these opportunities, a full and accessible inventory is 

needed of site characteristics, infrastructure, research priorities, datasets, and contacts. Some of this information is available in various existing documents. However, 

we know of no single repository to currently access this information. 
168

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

a. To whom is the study important? All EFR scientists, staff, and administrators; other agency and university scientists, staff and administrators.

b. What benefits would clients and the public receive if the study is successful? 

It would clarify involvement by partners and collaborators, and would provide rapid access to current research in the EFR network as well as a platform 

for data synthesis activities and future research collaborations and proposals.

Status (ongoing or future potential): Proposed. Some of this information is 

available through EFR websites, ClimDB, the current EFR climate synthesis project, the searchable directory of watershed content database, and the network office. 

2. Quaking Aspen Growth, Yield, and Mortality Across the 

United States

Objectives—

To assess the status of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.). Quaking aspen is 

the most widely distributed tree species in North America and one of the most highly 

utilized species in the United States. Sudden as well as long-term decline and dieback 

of this species in regions of the country have garnered considerable attention over 

the last few decades, but regional analyses have not been linked to assess the national 

scope of the problem and potential overlap in primary and secondary stressors, particularly climatic variables. Furthermore, many of the aspen growth and yield equations 

used today were developed during the early part of the last century, prior to documented declines and dieback, when wildfire and exploitive logging created ecologically ideal conditions for the species to establish and grow. Given the spatial extent of 

quaking aspen in the United States, it represents an ideal species around which to build 

a standard monitoring and research program to assess current trends in growth, yield, 

and mortality. Specific objectives of such a program may be to: (1) measure growth, 

yield, and mortality of aspen in natural and managed stands of varying complexity; (2) 

test existing regional growth and yield equations against the range of current growing 

conditions; (3) develop a standard protocol for revising/developing regional growth and 

yield equations, and (4) assess the growth, yield, and mortality of aspen root systems—

a potential long-term carbon sink. These questions could be addressed in detail on a 

few EFRs in each region with supplemental data provided by the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis program (FIA) or on all EFRs with an aspen component. 

Application of R&D results—

The proposed study would establish a standard framework for defining and refining growth, yield, and mortality information at a national scale while maintaining regional specificity. Aspen is an important commercial tree species, but it is 

perhaps more important as forage and habitat for wildlife, for its aesthetics and 
169

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

recreational values, and for the watershed protection it provides. These factors 

combined with its above- and belowground carbon sequestration potential and use 

as a renewable biofuel make the findings useful to a wide range of stakeholders. 

The FIA program, for example, relies on regional volume equations to estimate 

live and standing dead tree biomass and carbon stocks. If yield equations do not 

accurately reflect tree volume, biomass and carbon stock estimates will not be 

accurate. The differences may be negligible at the tree level, but regional and 

national differences may be substantial. These differences have implications for 

state and local government agencies and industrial partners who rely on FIA data 

for growth and yield projections, energy utilities that rely on biomass estimates to 

inform bioenergy supply assessments, and forest carbon market-based mechanisms 

that rely on carbon stock information to address climate change and other environmental issues. Furthermore, documenting regional trends in aspen growth, yield, 

and mortality may lead to management strategies that mitigate stress factors and 

decline and dieback in other regions, which, in turn, may result in increased carbon 

storage, better water yield in dry environments, and improved recreational opportunities and aesthetics. Potential partners include but would not be limited to local 

EFR personnel, the USDA Forest Service FIA program, and affiliated universities. 

3. A Comprehensive Reassessment of Stand Development and 

Timber Management Guidelines in the Northern Lake States

Objectives—

To develop updated and improved management guidelines for timber production, 

such as stocking guidelines and site index equations, by reevaluating current 

and future trends in forest stand development under current and future global 

change conditions.

Ecological question to be addressed: How have changes in atmospheric composition and climatic conditions, e.g., length of growing season, temperature and 

precipitation, affected stand dynamics and stocking in the last 50 to 100 years?

The EFRs should provide long-term records that provide insight into changes in 

stand development, and should be a readily available source for destructive sampling.

Application of R&D results—

The ultimate products would be a new suite of forest management guidelines, and 

along the way would address important theoretical issues related to global change.

a. The study will be important to scientists and forest managers.

b. The study would improve the efficiency of timber production on a diminishing land base, and provide global change modelers with data describing 

trends in forest development.
170

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

4. Development of Modeling Tools for Predicting Smoke 

Dispersion from Low-Intensity Fires

Objectives—

Can recent developments in fine-scale atmospheric dispersion modeling be used 

to produce more accurate smoke management tools for low-intensity fires? How 

well do predictions from a range of models compare to “fireflux” experimental data 

collected during prescribed fires? 

We are using intensive field measurements made during prescribed fires 

to evaluate several state-of-the-art, fine-scale atmospheric dispersion models, with emphasis on their performance in simulating local-scale flows and 

near-surface conditions. Models and measurements aim to improve our understanding of the influence of forest vegetation layers and local terrain-induced 

circulations on smoke emissions, dispersion, and transport within and above 

forest canopies. In parallel, we are developing Web-based, user-friendly decision support tools for land managers, air quality regulators, and other users for 

planning prescribed burns. 

The Forest Service and the experimental forests need to demonstrate that 

hazardous fuel reduction treatments can be conducted without causing significant 

environmental damage, including impacts to air quality. Other EFRs and national 

forests can use these tools, and would probably be involved in model testing in the 

future. Silas Little EF scientists have led this effort because they have the capacity 

to conduct fireflux experiments owing to their highly productive relationship with 

the New Jersey Forest Fire Service, expertise in building and operating eddy flux 

towers, extensive experience with fuel consumption measurements, and long-term 

measurements of forest carbon dynamics. 

Application of R&D results—

This project represents a cost-effective way to build much-needed tools for smoke 

management by taking advantage of the rapid advancement in fine-scale atmospheric dispersion modeling for emergency response in the post 9/11 era. The 

Web-based decision support tools would benefit wildland fire managers, air quality regulators, and others who plan and conduct prescribed burns. These groups 

would be better able to plan fires to accomplish hazardous fuel reduction targets, 

while minimizing non-attainment of local, state and federal air quality standards. 

Because these tools would be location independent, they would benefit land managers worldwide.
171

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

5. National Silvicultural Synthesis: Long-Term Compartment 

Study Outcomes

Objectives—

To determine commonalities in stand response to silvicultural treatment over the 

long term across a variety of forest types. This work would investigate trends in 

composition and structure following application of similar treatments in the Forest Service’s large-scale “compartment” studies. These studies, which comprise 

replicated, stand-level silvicultural treatments, were commonly installed on experimental forests nationwide in the mid 20th century. Because they were based on a 

“pilot plant” or operational-scale model of research advocated by the Forest Service 

at the time, there are similarities in experimental design, measurement protocol, 

and treatment type across experimental forests and research stations. The remaining compartment studies present the unique opportunity to investigate the outcomes 

of like treatments on a national scale. This work would expand the spatial scope of 

current “pilot” (meta-analysis and regional synthesis) projects described earlier.

Application of R&D results—

The results of this study would help us identify universal truths about stand responses 

to certain types of treatments. We anticipate that we would be able to identify 

responses, in terms of structure, composition, and biomass and carbon accumulation, 

that consistently occur following application of a given treatment across forest types 

and climatic gradients, as well as those responses that are unique to given locales. As 

such, this research would improve our understanding of sustainable forest management, and allow greater certainty in prediction of treatment effects. Forest managers, 

as well as policymakers setting guidelines for acceptable practice, would benefit from 

the outcomes of this work. Collaborators would include university cooperators.

To date, work on this effort has been limited to an informal survey of EFR 

points of contact, to determine which sites have compartment studies. Potential participating sites identified so far include: the Argonne EF in Wisconsin (NRS, Brian 

Palik and Christel Kern), Bent Creek EF in North Carolina (SRS, Tara Keyser), the 

Boise Basin EF in Idaho (RMRS, Theresa Jain), the Crossett EF in Arkansas (SRS, 

Jim Guldin and Don Bragg), the Escambia EF in Alabama (SRS, Dale Brockway), 

the Fernow EF in West Virginia (NRS, Thomas Schuler), the Hitichie EF in Georgia (SRS, David Combs), and the Penobscot EF in Maine (NRS, Laura Kenefic 

and John Brissette). This research would be contingent upon the participation of 

a sufficient number of scientists from EFRs with compartment studies, as well as 

their willingness and ability to share data. Supplementary funding, through R&D or 

external (grant) sources, would likely be required to accomplish this work. 
172

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

6. Nontimber Forest Product Ecology and Response to 

Disturbance: Insights from EFR Long-Term Data Sets

Objectives—

How do culturally and economically important nontimber forest products (NTFPs; 

vascular and fungal species used for food, medicine, and other purposes) respond to 

disturbance, including overstory manipulation? Although some NTFPs are derived 

from trees, most are from understory species about which relatively little is known. 

The proposed research would analyze EFR long-term datasets including detailed 

nutrient, soils, and overstory and understory inventory data to address three gaps in 

ecological understanding of selected economic and cultural keystone species:1

1. Site characteristics associated with the species,

2. Population dynamics over time in undisturbed sites, and

3. Population responses to disturbance. 

EFRs long-term datasets constitute unique and potentially powerful existing 

resources for filling gaps in understanding NTFP ecology. Where comparable 

datasets are available, the national extent of the EFR network provides an exceptional opportunity to examine variation in population distribution and dynamics 

throughout a species’ range. This information is critical to formulation of sound 

conservation policy at the local, state, and national levels. 

Application of R&D results—

Study results would be of interest to diverse stakeholders interested in NTFP use 

and conservation:

• Native American tribes—Enhanced understanding of the ecology of 

cultural keystone species would help assure supplies of species needed 

to preserve traditional ceremonies and lifeways and provide tribes with a 

scientific foundation to complement traditional ecological knowledge in 

management.

• Forest managers and landowners—Information about the responses of 

NTFPs to management would enhance the capacity of U.S. forests to provide continuous (if modest) income streams.

• Land management agencies and conservation organizations—Data on habitat 

preferences and responses to disturbance would provide a scientific basis for 

NTFP conservation policies that is largely unavailable today. Results would help 

target inventory and monitoring programs, inform NTFP harvest guidelines, 

and inform vegetative management strategies to enhance NTFP populations.

1

 Species central to the cultural practices of Native Americans and other cultural groups. 
173

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

• Climate change scientists and policy makers—NTFPs, many of which 

respond more quickly than trees to changes in precipitation and soil and 

atmospheric temperature, have promise as early indicators of local climate 

change impacts. Longitudinal data on the location of species could provide 

an empirical basis for locally tailored mitigation programs.

7. Wood Decomposition and its Role in the Forest Carbon Cycle 

Across the Conterminous United States—A Unified Assessment 

Using the EFR Network: The FACE Wood Decomposition 

Experiment (FWDE)

Objectives—

(a) Characterize fungal and invertebrate colonization and succession, decay rates, 

and fluxes of carbon from wood across a continental gradient of temperature, 

moisture, and soil conditions; (b) Use closed-system microcosms to quantify abiotic 

factors (temperature and moisture) and biotic factors (brown rot vs. white rot, presence and absence of termites) that influence decomposition rates and the ultimate 

fate of carbon in a system (e.g., released into the atmosphere or sequestered in the 

soil); (c) Model carbon movement through a complex food web among fungi and 

termites into the soil and atmosphere. 

Our objective would be to integrate a large-scale field experiments (on a network of EFR sites), controlled microcosm experiments, and modeling to develop a 

mechanistic understanding of the wood decomposition and the development of soil 

organic matter under different abiotic conditions. 

Dead wood is the largest detrital component of forests, comprising a significant 

portion of the total carbon pool. Despite its importance as a carbon pool, there is 

insufficient information on the factors affecting wood decomposition, and there are 

no mechanistic models that effectively simulate wood decay across North America. 

The basic approach for this study would be to incubate a common substrate (loblolly 

pine, birch, and maple wood) at locations with different temperature and moisture 

regimes in order to assess the interactions of physical conditions with biological 

processes mediating wood decomposition. The significant and unique aspect of this 

study would be that it employs loblolly pine grown in the Duke University FACE 

experiment and the Michigan Technological University FACE experiment; this wood 

has a distinct 12C:13C signature which would facilitate tracing the flux of carbon into 

the air, soil and water. As a result, this study would be able to partition the detrital 

sources of C through decomposition processes and organic matter pools; specifically 

it would allow quantification of the contribution of wood to soil C pools, greenhouse 

gas emissions (including trace gases), and illuminating the biogeochemical processes 
174

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

affecting decay. This study would capitalize on the Forest Service’s experimental 

forest network, which provides sites across the country that have a strong foundation 

of supporting data and research that would augment this work. Our intent would 

be to establish a long-term (>50 year) experimental framework that can serve as a 

foundation for the study decomposition processes in wood. 

Application of R&D results—

This study would engender companion studies that build on this foundation, and 

would enhance collaboration among scientists in the Forest Service and collaborating 

institutions. Results could be used by scientists and managers interested in climate 

change, carbon sequestration, insect and disease outbreaks, and biogeochemistry. 

If successful, this study would deliver critical information on how climate change 

would influence biotic processes in forest and rangelands. Partners and collaborators 

for this study would be from universities, industry, and other research stations. 

8. Airborne LiDAR Surveys of Vegetation and Topography 

Across EFRs

Objectives—

EFRs comprise a network of sites representing valued vegetation, wildlife, 

hydrological, ecological, and cultural resources across the United States. The 

EFRs support a broad range of research and management applications in forestry, 

hydrology, ecology, etc., by scientists and professionals within R&D as well as 

academic research partners. The purpose of the study would be to establish baseline 

topographic and vegetation surveys of EFRs with Light Detection and Ranging 

(LiDAR). Objectives phrased as questions could include the following:

1. Can consistently derived metrics of canopy structure related to EFR plot 

data be used to predict biomass/carbon stores in our EFRs landscapes, then 

be applied in the national forests and grasslands for more informed carbon 

sequestration? Standardized canopy metrics across all vegetation types 

could be used to develop generalized models for regional biomass inventory 

and monitoring. 

2. Can heterogeneity in canopy fuel structure in EFRs be used to simulate fire 

behavior dynamics following alternative experimental silvicultural treatments? Detailed, 3-D information on heterogeneous fuel distributions could 

constrain the range of probable fire behaviors for a given fuel condition.

3. Can canopy interception of light and precipitation be used to dramatically improve watershed-level models of water, energy, and carbon budgets? LiDAR can provide for accurate accounting of light and precipitation 
175

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

interception by the canopy, for more accurate estimates of surface runoff, 

infiltration, transpiration, photosynthesis, and other biosphere-atmosphere 

exchanges of mass and energy.

Application of R&D results—

The goal of surveying all EFRs with LiDAR is already happening organically and 

may be about 50 percent complete, driven by the demand for LiDAR for many natural resource management applications. LiDAR is relevant to all forest and rangeland 

managers who stand to benefit from the more accurate topographic and vegetation 

information that only cutting-edge LiDAR technology can provide. Examples of 

LiDAR-derived products include 1-m resolution digital terrain models (DTM) and 

highly resolved canopy height and density data that can be used to facilitate virtually any environmental project at the regional, landscape, and watershed levels. 

Research Forester Hudak in Moscow already collaborates with national forests 

(Boise, Clearwater, Idaho Panhandle, Malheur, Nez Perce, Payette), private industry 

(Potlatch Forest Holdings, Bennett Lumber Products), and research universities with 

natural resource programs (University of Idaho, University of Montana, Oregon 

State University, Idaho State University) in the Interior Northwest. The EFRs provide R&D with an opportunity and a responsibility to take a leadership role among 

this suite of partners and collaborators to develop standardized LiDAR products as 

baseline information for strategic environmental measurement and monitoring at a 

national level.

9–17. Standard Inventory and Monitoring Protocols for 

Disturbance Effects: Vegetation, Wildlife, Carbon Inventory, 

Biophysical Drivers, Indicator Species, Biomonitors, Invasive 

Species, and Climate Variability Within EFRs

Objectives—

Develop a set of protocols to measure intensity, severity, and extent of major 

disturbances within an EFR. Collect data that could be compared across EFRs 

to assess the level of disturbance and its impact on other ecological monitoring data (hydrology, eddyflux, etc.). Many types of data could be collected and 

compared across EFRs to assess declines and advances of various plant and 

wildlife species. A set of plants or animals could be identified for monitoring 

across the United States. Populations, extent, health, and damage to these species could be recorded. Life cycles and population data could also be recorded. 

Stand level characteristics could be monitored and summarized upwards to an 

EFR using remote sensing. Additionally, each EFR could install a set of plots that 
176

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

would sample all carbon pools, where changes in fuels across components over 

time across the United States could be monitored. Standard weather measurements could be augmented with other instantaneous measurements meaningful 

to biophysical processes. A set of biological indicator species could be developed 

and monitored at each EFR to determine magnitude and trend information. For 

example, stonefly larvae could be used to monitor water quality. Lastly, generic 

generalist plants could be planted throughout the United States to monitor for a 

number of characteristics. Plants are great integrators of climate and ecological 

change. Standard protocols could be developed for how and when updates for 

EFRs data are done in response to disturbance. In particular, develop a standardized process for documenting fire severity for prescribed fires and wildfires that 

occur within EFRs. These standard protocols could build on previous work. Also, 

examine invasive processes for exotic species and examine vegetative productivity response to climate variability/drought.

Application of R&D results—

Study results would be used to measure and assess the intensity, severity, and extent 

of major disturbances across the United States, as well as within an EFR. 

18. Common Garden Experiments to Assess Key Plant Species 

Adaptation to Climate Change

Objectives—

We conducted interviews with a number of current and past Rocky Mountain 

Research Station scientists as part of a study to gather anecdotal information on 

observed effects on climate change in experimental forests and ranges. We also 

talked about new relevant climate change research that could be done. 

Application of R&D results—

On the biological side, several participants talked about networked common garden 

experiments, involving a gradient of EFRs, as a way to look at adaptation. More 

on the social side, participants talked about a need to “get a handle on” the effects 

of recreation on EFRs and NFS land as a whole. Road closure came up a couple of 

times as an issue that is going to be increasingly important and contentious so EFRs 

could be a place to test social and ecological responses to road closures (or any 

other relevant changes in policy toward recreation on NFS land).

Also, there would be an opportunity to (1) apply proposed adaptation strategies 

on the ground and measure outcomes/results and (2) simultaneously engage the 

public in thinking about management as experimentation (as in the adaptive management model) and measure outcomes/results. 
177

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

19. EFR Science Synthesis of Biological Responses 

to Stream Nutrients

Objectives—

Synthesize EFR data, metadata, and publications to answer the research question: 

What are biological responses to stream nutrients? Draw upon the wide range of 

studies that have been done at sites across the EFR network to answer how the 

living component of stream ecosystems responds to nutrients in streams. Responses 

could be in aggregate (i.e., ecosystem-wide measures such as standing biomass, 

net photosynthesis, stream respiration, etc.); at the community level (e.g., measures 

such as species diversity); or at the population level (e.g., individual species or 

guild population responses). Coverage would include all EFRs that have a history 

of stream ecology studies. Responses could also be differentiated by other useful 

characteristics such as by region, forest type, or management practice. The purpose 

would be to respond to a request by members of the state and federal water quality 

regulatory community to make the body of EFR research on this topic more useful 

in their work of setting water quality standards for forestry practices. EFRs are 

eminently suited to this purpose because they were originally designed to study 

effects of forestry practices and there are very few places outside of EFRs where 

high-quality data and controlled studies have been done on effects of forestry practices on water quality that are comparable with those done on EFRS. EFR studies 

also provide examples in most major forest types across the country. 

Application of R&D results—

This synthesis would be published and made available on the Web via the Clim/

Hydro/StreamChemDB Web harvester suite and would provide water quality regulators (and any other users interested in biological responses to stream nutrients) 

with a well-articulated and thought-out analysis of what research and monitoring 

has been accomplished on this topic at EFRs and what EFR data/metadata are 

available. Results of the synthesis would also point out critical gaps for answering 

questions on this topic and may potentially identify important new areas/methods 

for future research or monitoring across the EFR network. (a) This synthesis would 

be directly important to the water quality regulatory community and more generally to stream ecologists, fisheries managers, drinking water utilities operators, 

and forest land managers. (b) Water quality regulators would benefit directly from 

better access to EFR data/metadata and study results that are of higher quality 

and more relevant to forest management than are generally available elsewhere for 

setting water quality standards and developing models to support those standards. 

The Pacific Northwest Research Station has led direct discussions (via webinar on 
178

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

March 3, 2011) with water quality regulators from five states and three EPA regions 

across the country, jointly sponsored by NCASI, research arm of the forest products 

industry. This project is a direct response to a request from the regulators at that 

discussion for a comprehensive science synthesis of EFR research, data and metadata on this specific topic. A working group, including representative regulators, is 

currently writing an outline for a synthesis and would develop a proposal to seek 

funding for its development. 

20. Legacy Study Using the Long-Term Ecosystem Productivity 

(LTEP) Experiments Implemented on Olympic Experimental 

State Forest, in the Greater H.J. Andrews EF Area, and Near 

Cascade Head EF 

Objectives—

• What is the effect of a wide range of management strategies on long-term 

ecosystem productivity, where LTEP is evaluated with long-term above and 

belowground net primary production and soil fertility changes along with 

production of various ecosystem services? 

• What role do hardwoods and early-seral vegetation play in long-term 

growth of conifers?

• Would leaving residual woody biomass benefit ecosystem production?

• How would treatment responses interact with fire and wind?

• How would older mature conifer stands (80 to 110 years old) respond to thinning?

• What are the biodiversity consequences of the various strategy elements 

(hardwoods, woody debris, mature-conifer thinning)?

With 15-acre treatment areas, replication, and extensive pre- and post-treatment 

measures and archived (especially soil) samples, renewed monitoring of LTEP 

experimental units would provide long-term data on ecosystem changes (since 

1993) unavailable by other means. Recent monitoring of a fourth LTEP site (not 

affiliated with an EF, on the Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest) demonstrated 

that significant changes in soils and vegetation can be obtained on these sites. The 

distribution of these experiments on or near EFRs in western Oregon and Washington, combined with the Siskiyou experiment, give a broad array of environmental 

conditions of Douglas-fir-dominated forests.

Application of R&D results—

The forward thinking applied in the design of this study is remarkably well suited 

to today’s pressing questions on effects of management on carbon, rates of Npp, and 

ecosystem services. The treatments implemented also happen to represent major, 

different ways to manage given possible climate change. The large experimental 
179

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

units (15-acres) also represent key opportunities to evaluate satellite and plane-based 

(LiDAR) remote sensing of leaf area, productivity, and many other response variables across a wide range of adjacent or nearby treatments. Other studies in EFRs 

nationwide with similar measurements might constitute a network for such testing. 

This study would provide empirical data on key questions currently unavailable, with direct inference (1) to past and future management practices and (2) to 

intervening lands throughout the Pacific Northwest region. Scientific credibility of 

modeled projections needs this empirical grounding. 

Collaborators include the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service 

(study instigator), various national forests, the Washington Department of Natural 

Resources (landowners), and various universities, including Western Washington 

University, Oregon State University, and the University of Washington (researchers).

21. Continental-Scale Questions for EFRs

Objectives—

A critical load is the pollution threshold that can be deposited into a specified 

ecosystem without causing significant adverse environmental effects. Data requirements include atmospheric deposition rates, nutrient cycling, water quality, soil 

chemistry, target organism condition, and other environmental data. EFR scientists 

often collect these data for the same location and have done so for long periods of 

time (≥10 years, sometimes ≥50 years) allowing for trend analyses and the development of a baseline to assess ecosystem responses to environmental change over 

decades. Nineteen EFR sites have received preliminary funding to establish ICP 

Level II plots, which roughly coincide with P3 or P4 plots used to monitor forest 

health by FIA. Although these funds have enabled the purchase of the needed 

equipment, the operation of the plots has been left up to individual projects. At a 

recent workshop a list of operational needs was developed for these sites. Some 

are applicable within the scope of this proposed initiative and include an ICP czar 

who would be responsible for training, protocols, quality assessment and quality 

control; the purchasing of missing equipment; data management (perhaps link with 

FIA P3 plot database and other efforts such as the National Research Data Management effort); and other activities central to the operation of the network. This czar 

position could also serve other national EFR efforts in database development and 

management, or facilitate the development of protocols for core data that all EFRs 

adopt (of course, taking into consideration existing protocols, etc.). Finally, an ICP 

or data czar could be an active participant in the new Integrated Monitoring and 

Assessment (IM&A) effort by all three deputy areas of the Forest Service and fully 

endorsed by leadership. 
180

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Another initiative related to EFRs and CL assessments would be a comparison 

of the different models used to calculate CLs for various climate, soil, and vegetation types. Individual EFR sites could serve as “point data” for using these models 

in calculating critical loads and thus provide data to validate the models. EFRs are 

well suited for this exercise because of the co-located data and the ability to validate 

models back in time. This modeling exercise would be done in partnership with 

NFS Air Program, NADP’s Critical Loads Science Committee (CLAD), EPA, and 

the National Park Service as part of phase II of the FOCUS (Focal Center Utility 

Study) project. 

Application of R&D results—

Critical Loads questions: What is the effect of land use and population change on 

the environment and do these changes affect the sensitivity of forest ecosystems to 

atmospheric pollution (deposition load and ambient level) and, more broadly, forest 

ecosystem health? 

1. What is the effect of climate change on stream and air temperature in forest 

ecosystems at a multiple scales (local, regional, and continental)?

2. How do changes in stream and air temperature relate to vegetation type, 

plant physiology, presence of invasive species, etc.?

3. How do environmental changes related to climate and land use change 

affect carbon and nutrient cycling and, ultimately, the sensitivity of forest 

ecosystems to atmospheric pollution?

4. What are the responses of forest ecosystems to atmospheric pollution along 

various environmental gradients such as elevation, longitudinal, latitudinal, 

urban-to-wildland, industrial centers, soil types, and third-order to firstorder streams?

Other questions:

1. Effect of climate change on phenology of forest understory and main forest 

tree species.

2. Effect of climate change on snow melt and vegetation physiology, effect on 

surface and groundwater hydrology. (This has been done at Frasier EF, but 

could be expanded to other snow EFRs). 

3. Impacts of local and regional topography on smoke behavior patterns.

4. Effect of climate change on organic matter decay (already proposed; 

we support). 
181

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

22. Understanding the Controls on Clean Water Delivery from 

Headwater Forests—Synthesizing Long-Term Data from USFS 

Experimental Forests

Objectives—

Clean water for multiple uses is one of the primary ecosystem services provided by headwater forests. Of the total miles of streams, most are located in headwaters, the terrain in 

which the majority of NFS lands are found. Owing to their relatively pristine condition, 

headwaters are sensitive to forest change associated with insects, wildfire, forest harvest, 

atmospheric inputs, climatic extremes, and natural forest succession. Such changes 

increase stream nutrient concentrations and temperature and sediment and nutrient 

output. Because disturbances cascade through ecosystems and affect downstream users, 

standards have been established to protect water quality during forest management activities. Forest Service Research and Development is uniquely positioned to examine the 

water quality responses to resource management, natural disturbance and climate-related 

change using existing long-term data from EFRs. Researchers have studied stream 

hydrology and solute chemistry in manipulated and untreated watersheds at experimental 

forests across the country for decades. These sites exist across gradients of precipitation, 

atmospheric nitrogen deposition, nutrient limitation, and vegetation and soil types.

Application of R&D results—

This synthesis would:

• Increase understanding of water quality responses to forest disturbance 

across a range of environmental conditions throughout the nation. With 

increasing concerns about climate change, forest management and water 

quality, this type of synthesis is extremely timely. 

• Increase visibility of experimental forests and Forest Service research 

scientists by providing information that is relevant to managers, agencies, 

other scientists, interested public, and downstream consumers.

• Provide findings that are useful in forest planning documents and water 

quality criteria.

The proposed synthesis would capitalize on substantial efforts made to date to compile long-term cross-site streamwater chemistry data and assess the compatibility of 

these data across sites of the EFR network. Three synthesis products proposed would 

address: (1) Are water quality trends over time at EFR sites across North America 

responding similarly over time and with changing climate? (2) What abiotic and 

biotic factors most influence the magnitude and duration of water quality responses 

to forest disturbances, both natural disturbances (hurricane, insect outbreak, fire) 

and forest harvest? (3) How do long-term EFR stream chemistry data from headwater basins compare to state and national guidelines for stream nutrient criteria?
182

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

23. Experimental Management of Riparian Wind Buffers to 

Provide for Both Riparian Habitat Functions and Commodity 

Production

Objectives—

• What are the extents and the stand characteristics of wind buffers needed to 

maintain riparian forest integrity?

• How should timber in the wind buffers be harvested without compromising 

the ecological functions of the riparian forests?

• How does empirical data on windthrow in managed stream buffers differ 

from the projections of existing windthrow models?

Application of R&D results—

Relevance to Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WADNR) management needs: About one-fifth of the Olympic Experimental State Forest (OESF) is 

within riparian wind buffers. These buffers can be actively managed to potentially 

contribute to commodity production and enhanced ecological functions. Currently, 

they are generally not considered for active management mainly because of uncertainty about the use of forest management to achieve conservation objectives.

Wind is a major natural disturbance force in coastal forests of the Pacific Northwest. Its effect is greatly influenced by topography, stand conditions, and proximity to 

the ocean. Similar experiments in other EFR network locations could make an interesting and useful cross-site comparison study to test the influence of these factors.

WADNR is currently developing a long-term status and trends monitoring for 

riparian areas in the OESF. Both aquatic and riparian habitat conditions would be 

monitored, including managed and unmanaged wind buffers. 

WADNR is using a windthrow risk model, developed by the University of 

British Columbia, to plan management in the OESF and WADNR-managed lands in 

southwest Washington. The model is based on previous research conducted in British Columbia coastal forests. Comparison of OESF empirical data with windthrow 

models or data from other EFRs (especially those subject to coastal wind storms 

like Luquillo EF in Puerto Rico) might also be of interest.

24. Understanding Changes in Ecosystem Function at 

Continental Scales: Monitoring in the EFR Network with 

Permanent Vegetation Plots

Objectives—

How are the functions of different ecosystems changing in response to changes 

in climate, disturbance, and management? A network of permanent plots with 
183

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

consistent measurements is the most effective way to detect changes in vegetation 

establishment, growth, and mortality at regional and national scales. Establishing such a network on EFRs provides a sample of the important vegetation types 

across the nation and a way to link in-depth knowledge of EFRs to the more 

extensive national grid of Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plots. The EFR 

network samples vegetation gradients ranging from tropical to boreal, coastal to 

continental, and lowland to montane. Having comparable measurements across 

these gradients would vastly improve the scope of inference beyond the ubiquitously-studied vegetation types (e.g., Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine forests in 

the West).

How do the controls on ecosystem function vary across local, regional, and 

national scales? Understanding of hydrologic and climatic variation and their 

controls on vegetation productivity is rudimentary, particularly in mountainous terrain. Synchronous measurements of abiotic controls (e.g., microclimate 

and soil moisture) and biotic processes (e.g., transpiration and nutrient cycling) 

across local topographic gradients and regional and national climatic gradients 

would greatly enhance this understanding. Tying these measurements to permanent plot measurements of ecosystem structure and function would improve our 

ability to parameterize models of ecosystem function and its response to changes 

in climate.

Application of R&D results—

Forest management is increasingly focused on the maintenance of ecosystem 

services, including clean water, carbon sequestration, and wildlife habitat. Managers are also seeking guidance on strategies to deal with future changes in climate. 

The combination of existing and past management and watershed studies in EFRs 

with a consistent network of coupled climate and vegetation process measurements 

on permanent plots would allow better models coupling climate and vegetation 

response to hydrology and anticipate habitat changes and responses to likely future 

climate scenarios.

This project would take advantage of the considerable infrastructure in 

the national FIA program in terms of protocols, field expertise, and database 

management. Funding to the FIA program in FY 2010 and 2011 has been used 

to establish intensified plot networks in an initial set of EFRs and synthesize 

existing information and studies in the EFR network. The FIA program has 

established programs of quality control and assurance and the use of consistent 

measurement devices (e.g., sampling design, plot design, and instruments) 

would be key to ensuring comparability of results to answer questions across 

multiple EFRs.
184

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

25. Understanding Ungulate Herbivory as a Chronic Disturbance 

Interacting with Episodic Disturbance.

Objectives—

1. To evaluate the effects of ungulate herbivory on a variety of response variables including understory development and composition, particularly the 

dynamics of palatable versus unpalatable shrubs and trees, invasive species, 

and fire risk; ungulate diet selection and diet nutrient quality as influenced 

by changes brought about by ungulate herbivory; effects on nutrient availability that influences forest productivity; impacts to other organisms (small 

mammals, neotropical migrants).

2. To evaluate ungulate herbivory under episodic disturbance such as fuels 

reduction, wild fire, timber harvest, insect or disease mortality in contrast 

to sites not disturbed.

3. To use the results to refine and parameterize conceptual models regarding 

ungulate effects on forest development.

The proposed research is of fundamental interest to managers of forest ecosystems who are charged with delivery of sustainable forest products, sustainable 

forage for livestock, and management of a suite of associated watershed, wildlife, 

and recreational resources on public forests. Benefits to managers include the development of models that provide science-based options for management of multiple 

use forests where ungulates are important agents of chronic disturbance that alter 

successional trajectories.

Application of R&D results—

Ungulate herbivory is ubiquitous across forest landscapes in the United States. Yet 

mention of herbivory in management documents is rare. Research from the Kane 

EF illustrates the magnitude of the issue of herbivory effects on forest composition 

and biodiversity. Important questions are:

1. How does ungulate herbivory affect alien plant invasions and the composition, life forms, species richness, cover, and structure of plant communities 

in forest understories?

2. Are there thresholds of ungulate herbivory 

3. How is forest productivity affected by ungulate herbivory; both directly 

(nutrient redistribution) and indirectly through changing the composition of 

both understories and overstories?

4. How do the effects of ungulate herbivory influence the productivity of the 

ungulates themselves?
185

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

26. Evaluating Fuel, Vegetation, and Disturbance Dynamics 

Using the Irregular Uneven-Aged Silvicultural System Within 

Different Forest Structure Stages on the Black Hills EF

Objectives—

Experimental forests and ranges are places designated for long-term and manipulative 

research of forest and range vegetation (Adams and others 2004), thus they are well suited 

to evaluate a variety of silvicultural techniques. By using an experimental forest, both the 

short- and long-term silvicultural, managerial, and ecological effects of treatments can be 

studied, displayed, and preserved. Black Hills Experimental Forest (BHEF) is located 20 

miles northwest of Rapid City, South Dakota, and is 3,500 acres in size, representing the 

ponderosa pine-cover type near the center of the Black Hills National Forest. 

There are several issues concerning forest management in the Black Hills. A 

large portion of the forests are rated as having medium to high risk of mountain beetle 

infestation; and are currently experiencing a large-scale infestation. Due to the nature 

of the growth and development of Black Hills ponderosa pine forests; these areas tend 

to develop continuous canopy and abundant regeneration that were historically diversified through fire. Because of its high recreation value, much of the Black Hills has 

substantial amounts of wildland urban interface, requiring continuous fire suppression 

and limiting the applicability of prescribed fire as a dominant tool for creating diversity 

in crown and surface fuels. Maintaining wildlife habitat for a variety of species also is a 

major value placed on the Black Hills. Addressing these issues in an integrated fashion 

offers both challenges and complexity to forest management. The objective of this study 

is to develop, implement, and evaluate a variety of management activities designed to 

integrate these many issues at multiple spatial scales. One such technique that would be 

tested at BHEF is an approach developed by Graham and Jain (2005) which attempts 

to balance management objectives and stakeholder values within an ecological context, 

resulting in the development of the irregular (or free) selection silvicultural system. 

Justification and application of R&D results—

The uneven-aged study has two objectives. The first is the development and application of the irregular or free selection silvicultural system in a very productive 

ponderosa pine forest within different forest structural stages currently in place on 

BHEF (Graham and Jain 2005). The second is to evaluate a variety of ecological 

effects of the forest conditions created by these silvicultural systems. For example, 

this study would document the impact the treatments associated with each silvicultural system have on creating and maintaining forest conditions that are resilient 

to insect, disease, and wildfire within a changing climate. In addition, because this 

silvicultural system is fully replicated using a scientific design, future research 

opportunities exists for wildlife, hydrology, or other research purposes.
186

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

27. Landscape-Scale Management Experiments to Test 

Effectiveness of Riparian Management Practices Based on 

Historical Range of Natural Variability

Objectives—

• What is the historical range of natural variability (HRV) in the experimental landscapes?

• What are the outcomes of riparian management based on HRV as projected 

by holistic landscape models?

• What is the effect of HRV-based riparian management on aquatic (instream) habitat as indicated by empirical data?

• What is the effect of HRV-based riparian management on watershed conditions as indicated by empirical data?

• How economically and operationally feasible is the HRV-based riparian 

management?

Application of R&D results—

Relevance to Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WADNR) 

management needs: Riparian management in the Olympic Experimental State 

Forest (OESF) targets habitat complexity as afforded by natural disturbances. There 

are several major uncertainties related to this management goal including the HRV, 

the economic and ecological feasibility of management prescriptions based on HRV, 

and the link between stand-level management prescriptions and landscape levelecological objectives.

A symposium of scientists, policymakers and land managers examined the scientific basis for riparian forest policy and management in western Washington in 2008. 

There was consensus among scientists that the latest research has found that high 

productivity in aquatic and riparian ecosystems depends on maintaining temporally 

dynamic and spatially heterogeneous conditions. Existing riparian policies and management guidelines that drive these ecosystems toward static and uniform conditions 

may not be consistent with current science. Recognition of this potential sciencepolicy gap prompted two recommendations: (1) conduct landscape-scale management 

experiments to test effectiveness of alternative management that is consistent with 

current science; and (2) analyze current riparian area policies and management 

guidelines to identify what areas and are not consistent with current science.

Landscape-level management experimentation requires extensive land base 

and it is difficult to provide adequate replication within a single experimental 

forest. Replicating the study across EFRs with similar biophysical conditions would 

greatly improve the inference power of the study. 
187

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

WADNR contracted the Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW) to develop 

scientific synthesis on riparian management. WADNR and PNW are developing a 

bibliography of information sources on natural disturbance regimes on the western 

Olympic Peninsula. 

28. Testing Different Silvicultural Techniques for Creating and 

Maintaining Structurally Complex Forests

Objectives—

• What is the effect of different silvicultural prescriptions for creating structurally complex forest? Key hypotheses would be whether we observe 

accelerated development of old-forest habitat components as a result of 

lower residual densities, variable residual densities, larger openings, and/or 

earlier treatment.

• How do empirical data on stand development after thinning differ from the 

projections of tree growth models like Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) 

and ORGANON? 

• How effective are different remote sensing techniques (e.g., LiDAR) in 

monitoring tree and stand response to thinning across a forest landscape?

• What is the operational and economic feasibility of different silvicultural 

treatments? 

Application of R&D results—

Relevance to Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WADNR) 

management needs: Considerable part of the forested stands in the Olympic Experimental State Forest (OESF) is in competitive exclusion developmental stage, which 

provides both low product value and low habitat quality. WADNR is looking for 

effective silvicultural strategies that restore and maintain older forest conditions 

while allowing for commodity production. The effectiveness of stand-density 

management to accelerate the development of structural diversity, understory regeneration, recruitment of snags and coarse woody debris, and large tree development 

needs to be tested in operational setting.

Many land managers in the Pacific Northwest face the same problem, including the Forest Service, tribes, and environmental organizations managing land for 

restoration. Replicating the research installations across the EFR network would 

provide site-specific information relevant to the needs of local land managers. 

The use of active management to develop northern spotted owl habitat in moist 

forests is one of the recommended recovery actions in the recently released Recovery Plan for Northern Spotted Owl. Land managers are advised to “implement 

silvicultural techniques in plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger 
188

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

stands to accelerate the development of structural complexity and biological diversity that would benefit spotted owl recovery.”

Scoping and initial conversations between WADNR and the Pacific Northwest 

Research Station have taken place for development of a study plan.

29. Accumulation of Heavy Metals in Watershed Soils and Their 

Subsequent Removal During Postfire Erosion Events Leading to 

Contamination of Drainage Sediments

Objectives—

The accumulation of heavy metals in watershed soils represents a significant environmental hazard as they are not subjected to biodegradation processes and they 

bind tightly to clay particles and organic matter in the soil matrix. It is thought that 

years of fire suppression have allowed further build-up of these metals, especially in 

areas where forest floor depth has increased. Because they are tightly bound, heavy 

metals such as mercury, cadmium, lead, and chromium tend to remain in the top 

0 to 5 cm of the soil surface or in the humus fraction of organic matter. Following 

wildfire, soil stability is reduced, making it prone to both dry and water erosion. 

The topsoil and heavy metals are then transported during subsequent erosion events 

to a perennial stream or deposited in a dry channel. Sediments entrained in dry 

drainages are released during the first large storm events following fire. Scientists 

suspect these sediments exhibit elevated concentrations of mercury, cadmium, lead, 

and chromium. 

Concentrations of heavy metals would vary widely across the forests and 

rangelands of the United States. Studies have shown that carbon-rich forest soils 

of the northern United States contain up to 16 times as much mercury as do soils 

in southern forests. Anthropogenic mercury has accumulated in forests since the 

industrial revolution (e.g., coal burning power plants). Soils found in areas bordering large metropolitan areas are high in lead. Cadmium is prevalent everywhere 

as a byproduct of mining and smelting of lead and zinc, electroplating, insecticides, fungicides, and commercial fertilizers. Chromium is present in ultramafic 

and serpentinite derived soils. Natural processes can oxidize and dissolve chromium contained in sediment leading to hazardous levels of aqueous Cr(VI) in 

surface waters. 

Many regions experience a rise in temperature and also drought due to climate 

change, both factors resulting in lower fuel moistures which would lead to more 

wildfires. Impacts would not be similar among regions, but extreme events may 

become the norm including precipitation and/or flooding. This would only exacerbate postfire erosion and transport of sediments laden with heavy metals.
189

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Application of R&D results—

There has been little research dealing with postfire sediment transport of heavy 

metals and their subsequent fate. Similarly, sediment accumulation of heavy metals 

has not been adequately evaluated. A primary objective would be to measure preand postfire mercury, cadmium, lead, and chromium concentrations in hillslope 

soils and drainage sediments at a selected portion of the 80 EFRs located throughout the United States. Using these EFRs, we would hope to find a wide variety 

of soil, fire, and ecological conditions. Additionally, it would be preferred that 

the EFRs have experienced fire and are large enough to contain watersheds with 

established drainages (perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral). 

Part 2B—Ideas from National Forest System Personnel 

for Potential Future Cross-EFR Research and 

Monitoring (table 8)

30. Develop Guidelines for Eastern Shortleaf Pine Natural and 

Artificial Regeneration in the Southern Appalachians

Objectives—

Determine appropriate seedling container size, seedling cooler storage time, 

seedling planting depth, site prep burn, prescribed burn intervals (2 to 3 years), 

prescribed burn season (growing vs. dormant) and subsequent growth and yield 

models as the stands mature.

Justification and application of R&D results—

Background: According to recent FIA data (presented at the Shortleaf Pine Conference, September 2011), over 50 percent of shortleaf pine acreage across the nature 

range has been lost. Losses are due mainly to replanting with loblolly pine on 

harvested shortleaf sites. Shortleaf pine is more resilient, disease- and pest-resistant, 

and longer lived than loblolly pine, therefore a more desirable species to plant. 

National Forest System forest plans are requiring increased shortleaf pine restoration on shortleaf pine sites. Shortleaf pine produces a cone crop only about once 

every 5 to 7 years, so natural regeneration is infrequent.

Currently the Arkansas and Missouri western shortleaf pine ecosystems are 

being successfully maintained. Both artificial and natural regeneration techniques 

are used, along with appropriate prescribed burning. Research has been a key 

player in the learning curve and subsequent successes. The Southern Appalachians 

(SAs) present a distinctly different environment, and consequently different 

challenges. For example: soil type, climate, overstory and understory components, 

slope, aspect, burn season, and piedmont vs. mountain shortleaf pine planting 
190

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

zones all differ across the length of the SAs, and differ from the western shortleaf 

pine environments. 

Research focused on successful natural and artificial regeneration techniques 

for eastern shortleaf pine would support restoration as mandated by our forest plans. 

There is a focus group being formed to address shortleaf pine restoration in the 

SAs, and research partners would be valuable assets to this growing initiative.

31. Animal Damage Control (ADC) on the Chippewa National 

Forest 

Objectives—

Determine effective ways to minimize browsing of seedlings by deer and hares.

• What (if any) harvest methods and site preparation methods are most conducive to preventing browse by deer and hares during stand establishment? 

• What methods of animal damage control (e.g., Plantskydd TM repellent, 

budcaps, hot peppers, feeding seedlings garlic via irrigation at the nursery, 

or other new and un-discovered ideas) are most effective? 

• In what stand conditions (e.g., canopy closure, ECS/phase/soil type, species 

of overstory, etc.) is ADC most effective? 

Justification and application of R&D results—

Browsing by deer and hares is having substantial negative impacts on our ability to 

regenerate stands within 5 years of harvest and meet National Forest Management 

Act requirements. Browsing kills seedlings, so we need to replant stands (and resite 

prep in some cases) multiple times, thus the cost of reforestation increases every 

time we need to retreat stands. Plantskydd and budcaps have been used in the last 

10+ years, but are not reliable or effective. 

This research would help us gain a better understanding of site conditions, 

harvest and other cultural treatments, and ADC options to promote a more effective, efficient, fiscally responsible reforestation program. 

Browsing is a problem that federal, state, county, and private forest managers 

have been dealing with for years. Research results would be shared with these local 

land managers.

32. Ecological Site Development for the Caddo National 

Grasslands, North-Central Texas

Objectives—

Develop ecological site descriptions for lands at the Caddo National Grasslands 

in north-central Texas, and for lands nearby that are to be newly acquired by the 

Forest Service.
191

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

Justification and application of R&D results—

The Caddo National Grasslands reside in two major land resource areas (MLRAs) 

that are small and at the margins of other Texas MLRAs. As such, it has not 

received attention for ecological site development by the Natural Resources Conservation Service as have other areas. Ecological sites need to be developed to help 

better plan and communicate management of the land.

Making matters more critical, a new large land acquisition (about 15,000 acres) 

is about to be made by the Forest Service at the Caddo National Grasslands in soils 

and topography that are new to us. It is crucial that ecological site descriptions be 

developed here by the network of experimental forests and ranges so that long-term 

plans (that are just now being created) would be in the proper frame of reference of 

the historical and current ecology of the land. 

Without ecological site descriptions to guide planning and policymaking for 

this new land, the Forest Service risks implementing improper land management 

strategies there—or even pursuing improper desired future conditions. The unfortunate consequences of this would be plant communities and conditions that are 

cost-prohibitive and infeasible for the Forest Service to correct later.

As a bonus to Forest Service researchers, this effort presents an opportunity for 

them to enter into the arena of ecological site development, an emerging field with 

potential long-lasting effects on Forest Service policy.

33. Spruce Reforestation Techniques 

Objectives—

Evaluate the best methods for spruce reforestation. Comparable plots would 

be established using different techniques, including; (1) with and without 

shelters; (2) microsite planting only; (3) planting with biochar; 4) fall planting 

versus spring planting. Additional plots would include planting lower elevation 

spruce along a gradient into higher altitudes to evaluate success in relation to 

climate change. 

Justification and application of R&D results—

This issue is important because the Southwest is experiencing a massive dieoff in 

spruce resulting from spruce beetle infestations and large high-intensity fires. As 

the climate changes, foresters are not sure if the old elevation bands are still applicable. The Forest Service has begun pilot projects to grow trees for carbon sequestration. As part of these pilot projects, we need to be able to guarantee that the trees 

would grow. The more information obtained on establishing successful plantations, 

the better.
192

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Any techniques that improve survival would be used in future plantings. The 

results would apply to most spruce reforestation projects, with the caveat that results 

may be different in different soils or elevations.

Note: Initiatives included in the business plan would be those that require 

two or more EFRs to cooperate in gathering and analyzing data, in particular to 

identify the types of questions that can take advantage of a distribution of field sites 

either regionally or even at a continental scale. This is part of an effort to recognize 

the potential opportunities that could be realized by making more extensive and 

strategic use of these R&D assets. 

34. Developing Guidelines for Assisted Migration of Populations 

Within Major Tree Species in the Eastern United States

Objectives—

Determine if it is appropriate to move populations within species in response to, 

or in anticipation of, changes in climate. If migration is appropriate, develop some 

guidelines that can be used to determine the most appropriate places to get tree seed 

in a changing climate.

After guidelines are developed, convert tests to “genetic outposts” that can 

provides sources of seed for artificial regeneration or introduce pollen adapted to 

future climate into existing forests.

Justification and Application of R&D results—

The climatic tolerances of populations within tree species tend to be considerably 

narrower than the climatic tolerances of the species as a whole. In less than 100 

years, the shifts in climate would be larger than the differences in climate over the 

distances we recommend moving tree seed today. Natural migration and evolution 

are not expected to change local populations of tree species fast enough to compensate for changes in climate. Assisted migration of species is a controversial topic, but 

assisting the migration of populations within species is likely to be necessary first.

Very little research has been done in the eastern United States, and especially 

northeastern United States, on how far it is appropriate to move seed of even the 

most important tree species. This information would be essential for making scientifically defensible movements of populations across the landscape. 

A series of test plantations could be established to address this need. The 

plantations should be established in differing climates and include seed collected 

in populations that differed in climate. Climate is expected to change continuously 

for centuries to come. It would not be helpful to establish these tests if all they do is 

tell us what the best source of seed for a particular site would have been for the last 

20 or 30 years. The tests should be designed so they provide generalized guidelines 
193

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

that can be used to predict the best sources of seed for the climate that is predicted 

for a particular site at some point in the future.

At the end of this test, the plantations could be thinned to provide seed for 

future operational reforestation or to introduce pollen into the local populations that 

would make their offspring better suited for future climates. Brad St. Clair of the 

Pacific Northwest Research Station refers to these as “genetic outposts.” 

35. Impacts of Herbicide Use on Forest Land to Control Vegetation

Objectives—

How effective are herbicides at controlling vegetation in comparison to mechanical 

treatments? What are the cost comparisons to mechanical treatments? What are the 

effects of herbicide use on wildlife and water resources? 

Justification and application of R&D results—

Herbicide use is very controversial; some national forests currently are not allowed 

to use herbicides as a tool to control competing vegetation on reforestation areas. 

National forests are spending many tens of thousands of dollars annually on 

mechanical treatments to control vegetation, and are not very successful because of 

regrowth. If herbicide use were found to be a safe and cost-effective tool to manage 

vegetation, it could save money, and forest managers would be more successful at 

meeting vegetation management goals. 

Empirical data is needed to demonstrate whether herbicides would be a useful, 

cost effective, and environmentally safe tool to use in meeting vegetation management goals. Decisions about the use of herbicides are currently influenced strongly 

by the desire to avoid public conflict.

The application of this research could have impacts on all forms of vegetation 

management, from rangeland to aquatic habitats to forested land. It could be used to 

assist reforestation activities, to control nonnative species, and in habitat restoration 

projects. This could affect all national forests and grasslands.

36. Region 1 and RMRS Draft Adaptive Management Research 

Framework (AMRF)

Objectives—

Restoration of forest resiliency in the face of an uncertain climatic future would 

require an adaptive management approach to restoration treatments at various 

spatial and temporal scales. There are many unknowns as to the long-term results 

a change in climate may have on disturbance processes, soil moisture deficits, and 

tree species distribution and regeneration abilities. A resilient forest ecosystem 

contains the diversity of composition, size, density, and pattern to enable it to 
194

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

cope with disturbance, and to perpetuate itself through periodic regeneration. It 

is capable of providing various ecosystem services such as wildlife habitat for a 

variety of species; clean water; recreation; and carbon sequestration, etc., in both 

the short and long term.

Anticipated climate change exposure and vulnerability of forests and related 

ecosystem services including wildlife habitat in the northern Rocky Mountains 

would require assessments and monitoring to evaluate the vulnerability and adaptation of forests to changes in regional climate and the likely increase of various 

disturbances and ecosystem processes. The combination of these processes including relative changes in temperature and the magnitude and timing of precipitation 

would likely affect the distribution of species and forest structure across the northern Rocky Mountains. Uncertainty in the direction and magnitude of these changes, 

and the diversity of water availability across landscape micro sites, requires us 

to develop a management/research strategy based on an adaptive management 

research framework. Research could use a multi-scale approach across biophysical 

settings to quantify changes such as in site water balance deficits, the ability of tree 

species to adapt to possible increases in disturbance events, and other processes that 

influence the regeneration, growth, and development of forests. 

Results from such studies would be used to develop, test, and evaluate current 

and alternative management strategies that would favor the appropriate density, 

structure and distribution of tree species, given social expectations of various 

ecosystem services. This adaptive management research framework would lead 

to the development and use of silviculture prescriptions that NFS silviculturists 

can implement to provide the forest pathways best suited for the forest species 

that can cope, adapt, and be resilient through the various climate change events to 

better insure the availability of ecosystem services that society expects from the 

national forests.

Justification and application of R&D results—

This framework would identify basic and adaptive management monitoring 

research needs and opportunities that can use ongoing management treatments of 

various types to function as a field monitoring and research lab. About 20,000 acres 

of harvest treatments in various forest compositions, 15,000 acres of precommercial 

thinning, and 20,000 to 40,000 acres of prescribed burning are completed on an 

annual basis to help restore composition and structure of the forests to create more 

resilient forest conditions. These annual treatment areas could be selected from for 

target monitoring and research opportunities as a systematic approach to adaptive 

management and restoration of resilient forest conditions. 
195

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

37. Groundwater Survey

Objectives—

The Forest Service has prepared draft national direction for the management 

of groundwater resources associated with NFS lands. Groundwater is a critical 

resource on NFS lands, supporting other important resources such as threatened 

and endangered species and most perennial stream systems. The Forest Service 

needs to position itself to respond in an informed manner to the increased pressure to access this resource. This draft directive was developed over a nearly 

10-year period with the involvement of specialists in all levels of the organization. 

It received a comprehensive review by regional foresters and Washington Office 

directors across all three deputy areas in 2005–2006, which resulted in substantial 

improvements to the original draft document. 

Water availability and quality are a concern across the country for ecosystem 

viability and for human use. NFS lands provide sources of drinking water for about 

66 million people. To appropriately manage the watersheds on NFS lands, the 

Forest Service needs to account for and address all of the water resources on those 

lands as a single hydrologic system. The Forest Service manages the headwaters 

and recharge areas of locally and regionally important rivers and aquifers. In most 

places, streamflow and associated ecosystems are sustained during dry periods 

by the discharge of groundwater. There is a clear need for the Forest Service, in 

cooperation with the states, to take an active role in the management of all water 

resources on NFS lands.

In addition, effective ecosystem management of NFS lands requires taking a 

comprehensive view of watersheds and water resources on those lands. Cooperative 

groundwater resource management by the Forest Service and state agencies would 

benefit the American public with more dependable, higher quality water supplies 

for human uses as well as protection of aquatic and riparian ecosystems.

Justification and application of R&D results—

The proposed directive would allow the Forest Service to address critical water 

resources on NFS lands more effectively and comprehensively. By providing for 

identification and characterization of groundwater and groundwater-dependent 

resources and existing uses, the proposed directive would allow the Forest Service 

to monitor and protect those resources and to account for those uses during planning and approval. 
196

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

Appendix 3: Extracting Value From Experimental Forest 

and Range Information Assets

This appendix suggests how we can optimize the value of our vast collection of 

historical records and data that currently exist in paper form, and some other forms 

of records, that are at risk of loss. Addressing the archiving of this large volume of 

records that has accumulated as scientists retire or move on to other work is daunting. These records are found in file cabinets and boxes at virtually all of our EFRs or 

research labs where Forest Service scientists have worked for more than 100 years. 

We offer a straightforward, albeit laborious, approach to cataloging and extracting 

the value from these assets and provide a discussion of how investing in EFR data 

management yields benefits to the rest of Forest Service Research and Development.

Research data—historical: Unlocking the value in the file cabinets is a fivestep process. 

1. Catalog holdings; includes assembly of basic metadata (data creators, field 

and lab methods, site descriptions, etc.)

2. Prioritize catalog entries conversion to digital format

3. Convert from paper to digital; includes organizing data into consistent 

file structures

4. Develop complete metadata compliant with an appropriate standard and 

EFR/data archive best practices; create supplementary content for understanding the data set

5. Package components and disseminate on the Web via R&D data archive

The “catalog and convert” process was chosen in FY2010 after an eResearch 

project learned that few EFR scientists had good knowledge of what was in their file 

cabinets. However, the approach is not unique to Forest Service R&D. For example, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently decided to use this approach to 

move its historical refuge data into digital format—create catalogs and then prioritize the cataloged data by relevance to refuge management issues. FWS started with 

two refuges as pilot sites in 2012.

Prioritizing data sets is an important step that can be accomplished using 

four criteria:

• Scientific importance of the data set—currently or historically important 

research articles

• Risk of loss (content fragility, impending loss of knowledge owing to 

staff retirements, etc.)

• Importance to the EFR network projects

• Importance to the public—this can be viewed as an EFR technology 

transfer activity.
197

Forest Service Research and Development: Strategic Vision for the Experimental Forests and Ranges Network

The first two criteria can be managed by each site. For the third criterion, a 

network-level prioritizing structure to work across sites and within sites would be 

required. For the fourth criterion, we would post basic metadata documents (generated by the cataloguing activity) on the network website. The website would solicit 

input from the public (this includes other government agencies, academics, and 

others interested in our data) about which catalogued data sets they want to have 

made available. For conversion activities relying on FS R&D allocated resources, it 

would be important to develop an agreement on how to allocate available resources 

to the data sets identified by the different prioritization criteria. We can also partner 

with scientists, nonprofits, or others—they identify data sets of interest based on the 

Web catalog entry, obtain a copy of the paper data from the relevant EFR, convert 

the paper data set and provide R&D with a copy in an agreed-upon digital format.

Step 5 implies a number of additional steps by the R&D data archive. After 

depositing the data product in the public repository, the archive markets dataset 

availability; manages access as either restricted or unrestricted; tracks scientific use 

via citations; may package for educational use; and curates the data product over 

time to maintain value and accessibility. Collectively, these steps facilitate re-use of 

the data by both the site and the external research community. Both types of re-use 

contribute to the added value of the research data product. For datasets that are not 

curated by the archive, a metadata document describing the product is added to the 

data catalog, which includes information on where to find the actual data.

Research data—modern: Modern data don’t require the conversion from paper 

that historical data do. However, to avoid having the accessibility of modern data 

degrade over time to the same level as today’s historical data, improved data management is necessary. This need increases as a study becomes more complex (time 

duration, number of researchers, etc.). At a minimum, this involves steps 4 and 5 

listed for historical research data. Augmenting the data management plan with direction on how data will be managed during the project (not just after project completion) can forestall many problems. As more projects develop full data management 

plans, the network can develop and share best practices using its internal website.

Administrative data: Because a significant fraction of administrative data is 

in the form of paper, the process for extracting its value is as described above—

catalog, convert to digital, document, organize, and share with interested parties. 

Devising and implementing an administrative data system can, as is the case now, 

be left to each EFR. An improvement would be to develop capabilities addressing 

common needs across the network; for example, an EFR geographical information 

system application that allowed each site to track and identify its own current and 

past studies. A further improvement would be a common network application, 
198

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-935

accessible to any member of the network, holding information on studies conducted 

on all EFRs. One can see how this latter capability would be useful for planning 

multisite research projects by Forest Service or external scientists.

Value can also be found by taking advantage of the new EFR SharePoint site 

(i.e., internal website) to share information across sites. Taking a step beyond that, 

asking administrative staff to collaboratively standardize practices and automating 

those processes, offers an effective way to improve the value of administrative data 

and broadly improve site administration.

Web presence: EFR staffs have lots of good ideas about ways to enhance their 

public Web presence. What they lack is time and expertise to implement for their 

individual site, much less across the network. Strategically, then, the network needs 

help creating content and deploying new Web technology. Tactically, the network 

needs two governance mechanisms. One is to approve posting of new or heavily 

revised content and a second one to decide on allocation of resources to various 

ideas for enhancing websites. It is also useful to link discoveries across locations—

providing a more synthetic view of EFR accomplishments. 
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Website http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808–2592

Publication requests (503) 808–2138

FAX (503) 808–2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890


U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

1220 SW 3rd Ave.

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300