Science

Who was your most helpful research scientist (FSR&D or funded by them) and what work did they do?

Some of us have been contacted by reporters about the important and unique work FS R&D has done.  But for me, it’s not about the papers.. it’s about the scientists and support folks who are there, listening and learning what problems practitioners face and working on those problems, hand in hand with practitioners.  Which is not to diss researchers such as Johnston in his work with Blue Mountain Forest Partners, but FS R&D provides a research home for scientists doing long-term research. When people say “university research tends to be short-term”, I think they mean that university researchers often rely on federal grants which are short-term.  But long-term problems require a consistent focus over time.

So I thought, in additions to the folks who are sending reporters lists of Papers Thought to Be Important Scientifically, here we could round up examples of Forest Service scientists who made a difference on the ground.  There are folks like Jack Ward Thomas and Jerry Franklin.  When I worked in Region 6,  not only did their own studies but took the time to go on field trips and talk to us practitioners-listening as well as talking.

When I called folks like Ken Skog at the Forest Products Lab, they would answer my questions- which were not always phrased accurately in economic lingo.  He and many others, take the time to understand questions. Today, the folks at BBER (not FS employees)( funded by FIA, so in the R&D budget)  answer the same kind of tedious questions,with some answers making their way into TSW.

The fact is that Big Science gets absorbed by the coolness of what I call “science fads”.  If we go back in time there was “radiate things and see what happens”, then “let’s sequence the genome of ..everything” and the ever-popular “let’s make a bunch of assumptions and run climate models and predict the future”.   In my own history, genetics became “conservation genetics,” and sin some fields, studying how to produce things people use- including how best to protect the environment as the things are produced- became déclassé.

I remember (sadly) one Assistant Station Director in FS R&D who told me that with “systems” research we would no longer need to study organisms (!).   Sure, FS scientists have done this kind of work and we can’t blame them because after all, both the money and the science-coolness factor tends to go with the fads.  But trees and forests are only capable of being understood over the long term, and so studies and careers and funding need to reflect that, if we want something more than an accretion of different fads.

Perhaps geneticists of my generation will never forget that lesson (as well as have deep humility about projecting tree responses to the unknown future) from the ponderosa pine elevational transect study. The study was in 1973 with  (only) 29 years of data at the time. Perhaps someone is out there now measuring? I’ve been unable to contact anyone who might know.

But at the high-elevation test site, height means for zone groups shifted with age as the relative heights of the higher elevation progenies increased.

The Rocky Mountain Research Station has a whole section on Science You Can Use.   Check it out.. here’s a recent example, studying first come first served or lotteries for recreation allocation. Here’s one about wildland firefighter injuries.

If FS R&D does become more centralized in administration, I hope the new comms shop expands Science You Can Use across the country.

Or remember the work of Jim Barnett on longleaf restoration, or  today trout genetic researchers studying where translocation of trout would be effective, or Matt Reeves Fuelcasting system that tells us what this year is going to look like in terms of fuels, or Nate Anderson helping folks working in the biomass industry. It could be that biomass utilization, like the Canadian softwood lumber agreement, will be a multigenerational endeavor.  And who better to follow that endeavor than scientists, like silviculture stars Russ Graham and  Terrie Jain.

When we were working on the Colorado Roadless Rule, the State wanted to hear from different researchers on whether fuel treatments worked (basically). The issue was “to what extent should some restrictions be loosened for roadless areas in proximity to communities?”. I selected Russ Graham for “our side”. Based on his long-term perspective and direct experience with wildfires, he could come and speak to people with varying views with great intellectual heft and legitimacy. It may seem odd to you that we are basically discussing the same things (Roadless, fuel treatments) today but where would we be without forest Service scientists to talk to and call upon?

Oh, and maybe this is nothing to the Science Establishment, but all work done by FS R&D scientists is open access. That means that non-federal hoi polloi have access. Science For the People!

I’d like to send these ideas in to the reporter, along with your own. Since it seems that reporters tend to use emotional quotes from people, if you want to make an emotional comment about how FS R&D scientists or work funded by FS R&D helped you in your work, please comment.  Emotion and colorful language, with perhaps a dash of hyperbole, would be good for these purposes.

The recent USDA reorganization write-up wasn’t clear (IMHO) as to whether they were proposing to combine administration of Research Stations (that would be similar to the 2007 NC/NE Stations combining into the Northern Research Station) or get rid of that layer or ??.  Perhaps many TSW readers have never looked behind the scenes to see how the scientists and technicians they meet are supported and how their organization and budgets work.

I asked Alex Friend to give us a description of what goes on at Stations (the locations on the map shown as stars, or Research Station Headquarters on the map).  Alex came to the FS in 2002 from Mississippi State University, and has been a research scientist, a project leader,  the R&D budget coordinator for R&D in the WO, the Station Director at PSW, and the Deputy Chief for R&D. He has sat in pretty much all the chairs there are to occupy, so we couldn’t have a better guide to help us understand how R&D works. So a big thank you to him for sharing his knowledge with us!

***********

A research station functions much the same as a regional headquarters or the leadership team of any organization. The station director (SD) is an SES position that reports to the chief. The station director’s office is generally comprised of one of more assistant station directors, and directors that oversee station-wide operations such as communications, engineering, and budget. Although human resources management and grants  & agreements have been centralized, there is usually a director with expertise in these areas who liaises with centralized services in Albuquerque and assists station personnel in these activities. As with any organization, the health and vibrancy of the station director’s office depends on the executive assistant and any administrative assistants who manage calendars, meetings, and incoming information from the field and the public.

The station director’s office is connected to field operations through leaders that oversee either programs and the scientists within (i.e., program managers) or locations and the scientists within (i.e., project leaders). Program managers generally represent a particular discipline area across multiple locations (e.g. Fire). Project leaders are generally responsible for a group of scientists at a specific location. These field leaders report to an assistant station director and are part of the station leadership team (SLT). SLTs may have 10-18 members including SD, ADs, directors, and program managers/project leaders. The SLT is the primary venue for developing policy and management decisions, and ideally there will be a close association between SLT meetings and regional leadership team (RLT) meetings.

The population of a research station varies widely from about 100 employees to as high as 400 employees, depending on how you count part-time and temporary individuals. A
typical chain of command would be from a scientist to their program manager to an assistant station director to the station director. Research support staff are often supervised by scientists but may be supervised by the program manager or project leader.

Research publications and science applications are the mainstay of research station work. Both activities are strongly supported by the station’s communication staff. Each publication must be internally reviewed before it can be submitted to a journal for publication. Internal review considers standards of scholarship and policy. Regarding policy, station publications are ideally sources of objective and unbiased information for the management community to use in decision making. Stations also publish basic science that may not have a direct application to management but advances knowledge in a way that ultimately benefits forest management.

Budget and personnel management at a research station is complex in that forestry research takes time and so commitment of funds to projects requires scrutiny by station leaders, scientists, and stakeholders. Hiring a research scientist might involve discussions with SLT, RLT, and the Washington office to ensure that the discipline area is line with local and national priorities. After hiring, research scientists often seek outside funding to support the work they were hired to complete. Rarely do sufficient internal funds exist to fully realize the needed work. They may also cooperate with universities to bring in specialized expertise that enhances the research project.

The annual FY station budget is set in Washington in a similar manner to the regions. The station executive team (station director and assistant station directors) generally sets the budget for each program and the headquarters; however, the recent past has seen little in discretionary funds beyond fixed expenses (salaries, utilities, fleet, etc). Program managers/project leaders do manage a budget, and scientists with external funding have access to those funds for research needs associated with funded projects.

Research scientists are promoted in grade through the Research Grade Evaluation (RGE) process. Review of scientists generally takes place at least every 5 years and scientists may increase or decrease in grade according to performance standards. Scientific accomplishments, based on publications and the application of publications to solve problems, is the centerpiece of this evaluation. Scientist grades generally span GS-11 through GS15 and beyond to ST (Science Technical or “super scientists”).

The central focus of the research station is science delivery, which is conducting research, publishing it, and making it accessible to end users who benefit from it.  Science delivery is a goal of every scientist and is incentivized by the RGE process; however, stations often invest in science delivery beyond a single scientist’s work to ensure that the work is in a usable form. Science delivery is often a role of communications specialists. The interplay between regional directors and station leadership is often key to ensuring that needs of the local region are met. Research station leaders also work through state forestry organizations, conservation groups, industry, and landowner associations to foster dialogue that fine tunes research
planning and the way science delivery presents information.

Interesting science stuff… using DNA to detect aquatic invasives, and firefighter safety. Hopefully the proposed Wildfire Intelligence Center won’t hoover up all the research funding for wildfire and firefighting. Note the collaboration between the researcher and the district fish bio.

The below are screenshots, here are the two links.

The piece below is from Phil Aune, by way of Evergreen Magazine.  The Evergreen piece starts with a linked piece by Michael Rains called “Eliminating the Gold Standard in Conservation Science” The below is  Phil’s reply to Michael.

Since Phil and I were both involved in silviculture research, and he is much better at writing about it than I am… I thought I’d repost here. Plus I love the Heinrich Cotta quote.  At one time, part of my job in DC was defending the Experimental Forests.. currently the poor USG cousin of the  (to the Science Establishment) LTERs.

Phil doesn’t mention it, but I also remember the Elevational Transect Study that Tom Conkle did and published in 1973.  It made many of the geneticists of my generation leery of willy-nilly seed movement, and today I still look askance at folks who think they can predict which trees will grow where in 100-200 years based on down-scaled climate models. In fact, I tried to run down whether the elevational transect study is with us today, but had trouble finding anyone who knew.

Anyway, hat’s off to Phil!

************

Side note

If you are confused about the budget bill vs. appropriations bills .. join the club.  Hopefully Andy or others will correct me if I get this wrong.. but here’s what the American Society for Cell Biology says..

If you’ve read recent news about Congress trying to pass “the budget,” you may have noticed that even Washington, D.C. reporters don’t always have a firm grasp on the details of what they’re covering.

The so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB) that’s been debated in Congress is not the federal budget. It’s actually a budget “reconciliation” bill. Reconciliation was originally designed to help Congress cut back when the federal checkbook exceeds the budget plan. But over time, this once-technical, green eyeshade tool has been used as a powerful way for the party in control to advance major policy priorities.

Reconciliation has been used to reshape significant federal programs. For example, President Clinton used it to “reform” the welfare system and President Biden used it to pass the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act—his two signature legislative achievements. It has also been used to deliver significant tax reductions.

This year, the BBB will use the Reconciliation process to make certain tax cuts permanent. Current versions of the bill suggest that lost federal revenue from these tax cuts will likely be offset by reductions in Medicaid and other safety net programs.

While the media focuses on the BBB, a separate and critical process is underway: the development of the actual Fiscal Year 2026 spending bills. Members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are currently working on funding plans for all federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

If this is true, then R&D supporters can still work with Appropriators, particularly the Interior Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

***********

Anyway, back to Phil.

The House version of the Big Beautiful Bill for the 2026 Appropriations basically zeros out both the State and Private and the Research and Development branches of the USFS.  Gone with a stroke of pen is over a 100 years of cooperative forestry efforts with the States and over a 100 years of Research and Development efforts.

We both spent a great part of our careers in R&D and the collective R&D efforts have led to the vast scientific knowledge base for management of federal, state, and private forest lands.  One of the key features of our R&D work was our abilities to establish long term data sets that most universities cannot do considering the shorter-term nature of their Masters and PhD efforts.

Some examples of long term research that I was personally involved with in our Redding, California silviculture sab’s efforts:

1. 50 year results of the Blacks Mtn. Experimental Forest Methods of Cutting Trials initiated in the late 30’s.
2. Blacks Mtn Interdisciplinary Biodiversity Study initiated in the early 1990’s involving large scale plots utilization two vastly different forest management treatments featuring high structural diversity and low structural diversity, subdivided by grazing/no grazing, and subdivided by prescribed fire/no fire.  These studies are now approaching 30 years of response measurements.
3. Garden of Eden fertilizer trials initialed in 1985 by Dr. Robert Powers where fertilizers, insect control, and brush/grass control were established on multiple sites throughout California.
4. Long Term Soil Productivity Studies.  The National Forest Management Act calls for the agency to do research and monitoring on the long-term productivity effects of their management practices (paraphrased).
5. In the late 80’s a group of soil scientists met with Chief F. Dale Robertson to express their concerns that nothing had been done about this mandate since the passage of FNMA.  The Chief agreed to a proposal they presented and found several million dollars to establish the National Long-Term Soil Productivity Research effort.
6. The same research design was established in just about every forested region of the U.S.  As an example, three loblolly pine locations were established including east Texas (dry sites), Louisiana (high sites), and South Carolina (coastal plains).  These were set up as 30 to 40 year efforts to determine short-rotation effects on soil productivity.
7. We had five major mixed conifer sites focusing on a 100 year rotation cycle.  All of the sites were established in the early 1990’s across the nation.  They are all approaching 25 to 30 years of age.  Publications have been presented posting results at age 5, 10, and 20 years.
8. Swain Mtn Experimental Forest Shelterwood regeneration experiments initiated in the 1960’s and 1980′.
9. Levels of Growing Stock studies for Ponderosa Pine and True Firs in the 1970’s.  The Ponderosa Pine LOGS study covered the entire ponderosa region.
10. Similar to all of these long term studies were other local efforts across every USFS Experimental Forest in the nation.  The Madison Forest Products Lab has developed studies in all aspects of wood and cellulose utilization.

---

Last year I was at the Lab in Madison and as I approached the parking lots there were a couple of truck loads of Vaagen Timbers mass timber panels at the testing lab. As we move into nano technology and cell level wood technology, the national need for a large wood technology is needed more than ever.

The stupidity of canceling out the all R&D efforts of the USFS is staggering.  It reminds me of German Scientist Heinrich Cotta who said in 1816 (paraphrased):  “Amongst the problems in forestry are:

1. The many sites our crop grows on.
2. The long time it takes to grow our crop.
3. Those who practice much write little.
4. Those who practice little, write much.

Over 200 years later, those who practice little are writing much to destroy not only USFS Research and Development, but USFS efforts for continuing cooperative efforts with the States.

Those who have practiced much have collectively also written much, but after the Big Beautiful Bill, the USFS research and development effort will be silent if things stays the same in the final big but not so beautiful fill.

The links to the webinars won’t work because this is a screenshot. Here’s the link to the Science You Can Use site. Again here’s the NAFSR letter if you want to write your Congressfolk..

Today I received the June Research Digest from Forest Service R&D. You can read it here and sign up for it to come to your inbox.

This is part of the “FS R&D does indeed produce useful research” push back to the verbiage in the President’s budget.  Also, I believe FS R&D has open access for all authored publications so that everything it does is available to the public.

******************

Given our discussion yesterday about the definition of clearcutting, the below piece seems timely on different entities define forest measurements differently. See the paper below with the heading “In Forestry Words Matter.” The paper comes to the conclusion that when people add things up based on different definitions, it leads to numbers that can’t really be interpreted. Which, if studies are used in policy, means that policy is based on potentially bogus numbers. So like Sean said in the comments, using the same definitions is important for scientists, but becomes a bit more murky at the science/policy interface.  If you want to use science in policy, and scientists tell us consistent definitions are important, shouldn’t consistent definitions also help policy by way of using the science that has consistent definitions? It’s a conundrum.

Here’s an excerpt from that paper:

Primary forest
Many international forest reporting efforts include the area of primary forests as a reporting category (e.g., FAO FRA, Sustainable Development Goal [SDG] 15 (Goal 15: Life on land n.d.), the UN Forum on Forests Global Forest Goals [GFGs] (FAO and CPF, 2022)). Yet the concept of primary forests is highly value-based and emphasizes the so-called “natural” state of forests in the absence of post-settlement human alteration. The FAO defines primary forest as “Naturally regenerating forest of native tree species, where there are no clearly visible indications of human activities and the ecological processes are not significantly disturbed” and that it “[i]ncludes forests where Indigenous Peoples and local communities engage in traditional forest stewardship and management/use activities that meet the definition” (FAO, 2023c). While the FAO definition is generally adopted by reporting countries, its lack of measurable thresholds makes objective and repeatable primary forest reporting challenging, undermining the ability to obtain globally coherent estimates (Bernier et al., 2017; Morales-Hidalgo et al., 2015).
Historically, the US quantified primary forest area for FAO reporting as the aggregate of: (1) areas designated under the “Roadless Area Conservation Rule” (66 Federal Register 3244, January 12, 2001) (i.e., Roadless Areas on USDA Forest Service lands which are subject to limitations on road construction and timber harvesting (Riddle and Vann, 2020)); (2) reserved forest (i.e., forest land where timber extraction is prohibited); (3) 80 percent of the state of Alaska’s unreserved natural forest; and (4) Land Trust forest (i.e., forest land managed and owned by major organizations entrusted to preserve and conserve it). This coarsely delineated forest land where primary forests may occur but was not based on measurable physical attributes that indicate “primary-ness” (e.g., native species assemblages; lack of specific visual indications of human activity).</blockquote

I looked at the grizzly one also, here’s an excerpt:

Our stakeholder groupings are simplistic but still highlight the need to move beyond assumptions about how people with particular identities will feel about reintroducing grizzly bears or other large carnivore recovery projects (Heneghan & Morse, 2018; Hughes & Nielsen, 2019; Nesbitt et al., 2023). Such assumptions can drive further polarization between stakeholder groups and turn constructive conflicts into pathological ones that result in gridlocks (Harrison & Loring, 2020; Madden & McQuinn, 2014). To successfully balance agencies’ legal mandates of grizzly bear recovery and other responsibilities to the public, it will be crucial to facilitate open and honest conversations; build trust, tolerance, and understanding between stakeholder groups; and share knowledge in ways that create space for diverse perspectives to be heard, deliberated, and addressed (Consorte-McCrea et al., 2022; Hiroyasu et al., 2019; Hughes & Nielsen, 2019; Lafon et al., 2004; Lorimer et al., 2015; Nesbitt et al., 2023).

Their identification of a pragmatic view

Here, the pragmatic viewpoint (Factor 2) was more concerned with the actual capacity of agencies to manage such an endeavor and its overall practicality, especially in the face of many other conservation and management priorities, such as trail maintenance or the recovery of threatened species still extant in the ecosystem (#32, +5; #3, +2; Table 3). At the same time, this perspective did not necessarily indicate strong feelings of support or opposition to the restoration of bears itself.

Reminds me of some of the current discussions around wolf reintroduction here in Colorado.

Anyway, here’s the rest… thank you, FS R&D folks!

 

Mechanical Treatments Best in the West;
Prescribed Fire Best in the East

Forest treatments work, confirm agency scientists running a study of forest types across the nation , especially when repeated and adapted to changing goals and conditions. Over the past two decades, researchers tested how prescribed fire and mechanical treatments promote fire-adapted species, reduce fire hazard, and improve understory diversity in Montana, California, North Carolina, and Ohio forests. While all treatments benefited each site, western forests responded better to mechanical treatments, and eastern forests responded better to prescribed fires. The researchers note their ongoing project — unparalleled in both duration and scope — keeps up with the times, showing managers how best practices may evolve with changing forests.

In Forestry, Words Matter

Many groups around the world monitor forests, but not all report their findings in the same terms. Case in point: the minimum threshold for “forest land” used by scientists in the United States is 0.1 hectares smaller than the threshold used by the United Nations. Over large landscapes, this difference adds up — and complicates forest reporting. Agency scientists emphasize the need for transparency in reporting and conversation among those making forest-related decisions.

Southern Waterways May See More Pollution,
But Forests Can Help

Levels of nitrogen may increase by over 300 percent and levels of sediment by over 200 percent in a southern waterway over the next 50 years, say agency scientists, though preserving or expanding upstream forest cover may mitigate the issue. When modeling water quality scenarios at sites in Georgia and Alabama’s Middle Chattahoochee watershed, scientists saw higher pollutant levels downstream of highly developed lands and lower levels downstream of thriving forests. Study authors note that — without efforts to preserve and expand forests — land development likely will continue to reduce forest cover in the area. Additionally, they note rural communities in particular may lack the tools to manage this pollution.

Grizzly Bears: Oh My!

By analyzing arguments on grizzly bear reintroduction in the North Cascades, agency scientists found common ground among differing opinions. While reintroducing carnivores like grizzlies often helps restore biodiversity, many people fear the animals may threaten lives, livestock, and recreation. Though the opinions of study participants varied, people in different camps often shared similar, pragmatic concerns. Additionally, seemingly straightforward opinions had nuances often overlooked in heated debate. Study authors stressed that identifying and validating various concerns helps managers build trust and develop reintroduction plans that work.

A grizzly bear and her cub in the Flathead River System, Montana. USDA Forest Service/Northern Region

Use the bioTIME 2.0 database to monitor long-term biodiversity trends. Answer your risk- and exposure-related questions about forest and fuels management using the Fireshed Registry dashboard. Ensure your techniques for assessing in-service wood products are up to date with the third edition of the Wood and Timber Condition Assessment Manual. Track wildlife through your yard with Lights, Camera, Tracks, the newest article from the Natural Inquirer program meant for learners of all ages. This email was sent by: USDA Forest Service Research and Development 201 14th St SW Washington, DC, 20227, USA Update Profile

In case you haven’t been following, the new Admin supports efforts to produce more timber from federal lands. It turns out the FS R&D had many research programs directed at both federal and private land timber production. The Rocky Mountain Station yarded up some of their research and sent it out yesterday. Clicking on the links here won’t work but you can get to them using the link above.

When we critique Admin actions, we can choose from a couple of assertions..

1. We disagree with the idea
2. Well, there may be a problem, but they are going about solving it the wrong way
3. The proposed actions don’t meet their stated objectives

It seems to me that we may have better luck convincing the Admin and/or Congress to change course with points 2 and 3.In particular, I am convinced that the folks zeroing out FS R&D don’t understand what they do. Or they do understand.. that FS R&D does uniquely practical and useful research and forms a body of expertise that can’t be generated from random 2-3 year extramural grants, and are playing budget games. Nevertheless, this is an opportunity to highlight the good work that they do.

So for the next little while, until the Congress passes the budget, I plan to post a useful example of FS R&D work daily. Any R&D folks out there can help me out by sending candidate researcher or projects to my email.