USDA
FOREST
SERVICE
RESEARCH
AND
DEVELOPMENT
Maybeso Experimental Forest, Southeast Alaska
In This Issue
Tom Iraci
A Strategic Vision For
Our Experimental Forest
and Range Network .............. 1
Goals of a New Research
History and Opportunities
Synthesis Report for the
Luquillo Experimental
Forest ......................................... 3
Data Management:
Improving Communication
Across the EFR Network ..... 5
Two New Flux Monitoring
Towers at the Southern
Research Station .................... 6
The Role of Experimental
Forests in Science and
Management ............................ 7
External Review of Rocky
Mountain Research Station
Experimental Forests
and Ranges ............................... 9
New EFR Display Available
For Use at Conferences
and Other Events ..................10
Collecting stream chemistry
data at Caribou-Poker Creeks
Research Watershed, Alaska
Forests and Ranges
Volume 2, Issue 2
T
Quarterly Newsletter of the EFR Network
Summer 2012
A Strategic Vision For Our Experimental Forest and Range Network
he 80 experimental forests and
ranges (EFRs) currently managed by
the Forest Service throughout the
United States are valuable assets with
an impressive history of scientific
contributions. These sites are uniquely
positioned to address current and
emerging natural resource challenges
throughout the Nation. This assortment of field sites covers over 580,000
acres (235,000 ha), are found in 32
states and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, and encompass almost
every forested ecoregion in the country. Our EFRs possess a wide variety of
historical data sets as old as 100 years.
These have been used by hundreds of
past and current Forest Service scientists, academic and other partners, and
countless students pursuing under-
graduate and graduate degrees. Basic
and applied research activities on EFRs
have made significant contributions to
our understanding of forested ecosys-
Experimental forests and ranges
are uniquely positioned to
address current and emerging
natural resource challenges.
tems and provide answers to pressing
questions about how to manage public and private lands. They also have
provided approaches to improve the
effectiveness of management actions,
better understanding of the potential
unintended impacts of management
activities, and strategies to mitigate or
avoid those impacts. EFRs have also
served as focal points for education
by Peter Stine
and demonstration and as a venue for
the interaction between land managers and scientists. EFRs are among the
unique strengths of Forest Service
Research and Development (R&D)
that set us apart from other natural
resources research organizations. They
are also some of the few places in the
United States where ecological and
land management research can be
conducted over large areas and for
long timeframes.
Findings
• Over 100 years of work and data
collection; 65 EFRs were established by 1960.
• Almost all ecological provinces
(Bailey Ecoregions) with forests or
rangelands are represented.
Continued on next page
A Strategic Vision For Our Experimental
Forest and Range Network (continued)
• Facilities include (estimated) 51 office buildings, 53 cabins (103 beds), 38 bunkhouses
(326 beds), and 106 storage buildings.
• There is a large backlog of deferred infrastructure maintenance (both buildings and
scientific equipment).
• Data assets are considerable, with a large
backlog of paper records requiring cataloging
and digitizing.
• The current annual cost of operating EFRs is
very roughly $10 to 12 million.
• External funding/support is a vital contribution to the vitality of EFRs and is becoming
more important.
• Purposes of EFRs have evolved over 100 years;
original purpose of commodity-production
forestry has changed to a more ecological,
multi-objective perspective.
• Distinctions and advantages of EFRs include:
▪ Permanent facilities that are 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.
▪ New basic and applied research studies,
complementing and conterminous with
existing studies, are feasible and enabled.
▪ Land and resource managers typically
are involved in articulating research and
monitoring questions and enabling work
through logistical support activities.
Summer 2012
▪ Many sites provide demonstration areas
to illustrate the results of research findings
for educational purposes.
▪ Logistical support (housing, meeting
rooms, laboratories, data, maps, etc.) is
available at many EFRs.
• The future of the EFRs includes both traditional work conducted on individual EFRs as
well as networking across regions, gradients,
and other geographic designations to address
new environmental challenges.
• The strategy moving forward includes:
▪ Identify key emerging scientific issues
well suited to the advantages of EFRs.
▪
▪
Implement a tier system to evaluate
and rank the current status of EFRs for
purposes of prioritizing future activities
and investments.
Further develop networking and
partnerships.
▪
Increase education and outreach.
▪ Address data management and facilities
challenges and staffing needs.
▪
Work more closely with partners in the
National Forest System (NFS).
▪
Implement the “Smart Forest” initiative
(http://nesensornet.sr.unh.edu/about.shtml)
to modernize scientific infrastructure.
Options
Six options are presented, based on eight fundamental criteria (science, research portfolio,
infrastructure, data management, personnel,
organization, partnerships, and outreach) which
bracket a range of possible trajectories and longterm investments for the future of EFRs:
Quarterly Newsletter of the EFR Network
1. Limited capacity—
EFR initiatives will continue based on current
support from stations (estimated annual cost
of $250,000 above current funding).
2.Status quo plus—
Very limited augmented work to address
critical infrastructure and maintenance needs
(estimated annual cost of $1.6 million above
current funding).
3.Experimentation network—
Efforts to shift to an experimentation network
with modest investments to support ongoing
activities and increases in data management
and facilities maintenance (estimated annual
cost of $4.5 million above current funding).
4.Synthesis network—
Meaningful support to upgrade facilities,
advances in data management, initiation
of new network research and monitoring,
adjustments in organization, enhanced partnerships and outreach (estimated annual cost
of $10 million above current funding).
5.EFRs as R&D’s core research platform—
EFRs become the focal point for R&D work
in the future; add scientists, technicians, and
site managers at EFRs, add other investments
referenced in options above, establish a core
EFR network office (estimated annual cost of
$19 million above current funding).
6.Experimental ranger districts—
Strategic selection of two to three highperforming EFRs within each NFS region and
expand the experimental area to the entire
ranger district in which it is located; add the
features discussed above (estimated annual
cost of $18 million above current funding). 3
Page 2
F eatured E x perimental A rea
Goals of a New Research History and Opportunities Synthesis Report for the Luquillo Experimental Forest
by Tamara Heartsill Scalley and Ariel E. Lugo
I
n 1979, as the scientific staff of the International Institute of Tropical
Forestry was preparing the first Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER)
proposal for the Luquillo Experimental Forest (LEF) in Puerto Rico, they
decided to develop a synthesis publication that would summarize all
the research done at Luquillo. Such a synthesis was expected to help
with the proposal and attract collaborators once they knew what was
available. After it was published, Research History and Opportunities in
the Luquillo Experimental Forest (Brown et al. 1983) became LEF’s mostquoted report.
In general, the scientific community has a limited opportunity to
view what resources are available for most of the Forest Service’s EFR
sites. But a new series of synthesis publications by the Washington
office wholly dedicated to experimental forests would result in about
80 publications that together place in the hands of scientists and
collaborators the bulk of Research and Development research results
from the work conducted at EFRs. The goals of the LEF’s new Research
History and Opportunities report are to synthesize the research that has
emerged from the LEF since the first report and place it into a concise
summary of key research findings while also highlighting opportunities
for future research that will contribute to a greater understanding of the
structure and function of tropical forested ecosystems in a changing
world. The LEF has been an LTER site since 1988, but has been a hub for
ecological research for more than a century. The following highlights
some major research findings that have emerged from the LEF:
• Forests are resilient.
• Climate change is upon us.
• Consumers (e.g., shrimp, coquis, walking sticks) can have major
effects on key ecosystem processes.
Continued on next page
Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico.
Summer 2012
Quarterly Newsletter of the EFR Network
Page 3
F E AT U R E D E X P E R I M E N TA L A R E A
• The “four-forest-types” paradigm is dead
(discrete boundaries between one forest
type and another do not exist).
• Most nutrients are in the soil (shift away from
the notion that most nutrients in tropical
forests are held in aboveground biomass).
• Energy transfer occurs through food
webs, not food chains; recent studies
have supported the concept of a much
more complex “food web.”
• The cloud condensation level is likely a determinant of forest structure and function. The
point at which clouds begin to form in the
LEF, at approximately 600-meters in elevation,
may induce changes in climatic conditions
and, therefore, changes in forest structure
and function.
The richness of information available in publications, the National Science Foundation’s LTER
Web site (http://luq.lternet.edu), research files of
the Forest Service, and other agencies (federal and
state) and universities with research programs in the
Luquillo Mountains makes the LEF an attractive site
for research collaboration. Research facilities and the
cadre of local scientists and students with active
research programs in the LEF bolster its value as a
place to conduct research on tropical systems of all
kinds (ecological, hydrological, geological, urban,
atmospheric, etc.). Research opportunities in the
Luquillo Mountains are unlimited, but some areas
outlined below are not well represented in current
Researcher monitors Luquillo EF weather conditions.
research programs, yet are of particular interest to
scientists and forest managers.
for forest managers responsible for managing
visitors, interactions with local communities, and
The interaction between visitors to the forest
ecological systems of the national forest.
and the natural ecosystems of the LEF. The LEF
and El Yunque National Forest receive hundreds
of thousands of visitors annually. Visitors’ effects
on (1) the biota and
ecological systems, (2) the
propagation of introduced
species, (3) the water
quality of streams, and (4)
the condition of trails, and
other demands placed on
facilities and on natural
ecosystems, presents an
opportunity to conduct
socioecological research.
This research is a priority
Continued on next page
Location of Luquillo Experimental Forest.
Summer 2012
How climate change will affect the elevational gradients of the Luquillo Mountains.
This new review has established the many
elevation gradients of the LEF, including climate,
vegetation, soils, and hydrology. One critical
gradient is the adiabatic lapse rate and the cloud
condensation level, which are physical indicators of environmental conditions that influence
vegetation, extending its influence to many other
components of the biota along the elevation
gradient. Climate change scenarios for the Caribbean, coupled with the influence of urbanization
on climatic gradients on the mountain, anticipate
Quarterly Newsletter of the EFR Network
Page 4
F E A T U R E D E x perimental A rea
Luquillo Experimental Forest (continued)
increases in air temperature and thus provide for unique
long-term research opportunities in the LEF.
The global connectivity of the Luquillo Mountains. The
Luquillo Mountains are exposed to global airsheds that originate over the Atlantic Ocean, Africa, the northeastern United
States, and Central America. Each airshed is characterized by
its own chemical and particulate signature, which presumably
affects local ecosystems in different ways. Research opportunities exist to continue the characterization of these airsheds and
establish the effects of these global connections on the biota.
The interface between urban and natural ecosystems.
As the urban population of the world increases everywhere,
consequently increasing demand for ecosystem services, there
is a research need and an opportunity to further understand
how ecosystem services from different parts of the forest gradient are delivered and sustained. The research opportunity is
focused on socioecological research, an emerging new integrative science with a focus on people and ecosystems.
In addition to the opportunities listed above, there is an
opportunity to connect the LEF to local and global networks
such as the National Environmental Observatory Network
(NEON) of the National Science Foundation. Puerto Rico will
have a NEON site at the Guánica dry forest, which will present
an opportunity to compare the moist, wet, and rain forests
of Luquillo with the dry forests of Guánica. Previous work by
Lugo et al. (2002) and other collaborators has compared these
forests and identified the similarities and differences that need
further comprehensive documentation and analysis. 3
Summer 2012
Data Management
Improving Communication Across the EFR Network
S
haring information across 80 research sites in six research organizations is a
challenge that encompasses not just managing information from research
work but also information about effectively managing administrative processes
common across the sites. Addressing this challenge has been recognized as a
worthwhile goal by many of the scientists and support staff at EFR sites. The
network is currently stepping beyond ad hoc solutions by developing an internal
Microsoft SharePoint site for EFRs. This site will provide a consolidated “first stop”
for basic information about EFRs: Who is the lead scientist for each EFR? Who is
the data manager for each EFR? What research projects are underway across the
network? What EFR-related events are on the calendar? The site will also maintain
network copies of primary documents such as establishment reports, GIS layers,
EFR working group minutes, and the like. Other reference material is expected to
include examples and tips for NEPA processes, preparing environmental impact
statements, and managing official records. It will also provide a platform for
presenting information and hosting discussions related to the current strategic
options initiative for the EFR network.
This new SharePoint site is envisioned to be both an ongoing resource for
members of the EFR community and an orientation resource for new members
of the community. Designing and populating the site began in July, with the
first “release” expected in August. If the site is successful, we expect that this will
be a short-lived release as the EFR community works with the site and offers
suggestions for improving and enhancing both the interface and the content
it organizes.
This site is hosted on the Forest Service’s internal network, and so has limited
access. This limited access means that this site unfortunately will not enhance
communication with external stakeholders. We hope that a public-facing counterpart will be developed over the next 18 months by either using the USDA publicfacing SharePoint infrastructure or by enhancing the national EFR Web site. Stay
tuned for announcements when the site goes live for Forest Service employees. 3
Quarterly Newsletter of the EFR Network
Page 5
F E AT U R E D R E S E A R C H
Two New Flux Monitoring Towers at the Southern Research Station
by Kim Novick and Jim Guldin
S
cientists at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory (Otto, North Carolina) and the Ecology and
Management of Southern Pines research work unit
(Monticello, Arkansas) have recently added two
new eddy covariance towers to the Ameriflux network (http://public.ornl.gov/ameriflux/). Both are
on Southern Research Station (SRS) experimental
forests—one at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory in western North Carolina, and the other at the
Crossett Experimental Forest in southern Arkansas.
Much of the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is cycled through the terrestrial
biosphere, and carbon sequestration by vegetation is an important control on rising atmospheric
CO2 concentrations. The net flux of CO2 to or from
an ecosystem is closely linked to plant water use,
which in turn is a primary control on freshwater
recharge and downstream water availability. Characterizing components of the carbon and water
cycles, and their interactions, at various space and
time scales is an important research focus in climatology and meteorology.
One of the most useful tools for studying the
dynamics of vegetative carbon and water vapor
exchange is the “eddy covariance” or “eddy flux”
technique—a micro-meteorological approach
that permits the continuous observation of the
net exchanges of CO2 and water vapor between
the atmosphere and the ecosystem. Since the
Summer 2012
Eddy covariance tower.
Quarterly Newsletter of the EFR Network
development of high-frequency CO2 analyzers in
the early 1990s, regional flux monitoring networks
have expanded to include more than 500 eddy
covariance research sites in a wide range of global
biomes.
The Coweeta tower is located in a cove hardwood forest, situated in the complex terrain of the
southern Appalachian Mountains. It represents
one of the most topographically complex sites
in the Ameriflux network. The Crossett tower is
located in a 75-year-old loblolly and shortleaf pine
forest managed for old-growth stand characteristics through a range of silvicultural treatments,
including uneven-age selection harvesting and
prescribed burning. The Crossett tower is one of
the only eddy covariance research sites subjected
to prescribed burning. Southern Research Station
scientists are eager to assess the impact of the next
prescribed burn (scheduled for spring 2013) on
ecosystem fluxes.
Scientists at the Coweeta Hydrologic Lab are
managing and analyzing the data from both
towers, with the effort being led by Dr. Kim Novick,
a postdoctoral research ecologist. Crossett Experimental Forest project leader Jim Guldin, forest
superintendent Rick Stagg, and research forester
Don Bragg of the Southern Pine Ecology Unit have
been key players in providing local support for the
Crossett tower. The project shows the potential in
developing functional networks on our experimental forests and ranges, forged through effective
cooperative relationships among scientists and
professional staff. 3
Page 6
E X P E R I M E N TA L F O R E S T H I S T O R Y
The Role of Experimental Forests
in Science and Management
by Terrie Jain
H
appy 100-year anniversary to the Priest
River Experimental Forest (PREF), which
celebrated its centennial in September 2011.
Managed by the Research and Development
branch of the Forest Service, PREF was established in northern Idaho to provide useful
information that would improve forestry
management in the western part of District
One, from Michigan to eastern Washington, at
a time when U.S. forestry was in its infancy. In
1911, there were only a handful of university
studies on forest development in the United
States and little was known about tree establishment and growth, the impact of fire, or
how to sufficiently supply wood products
for a growing nation.
Planting trees in 1925.
Summer 2012
Priest River Experimental Forest office in 1912.
Forestry pioneers Gifford Pinchot and
Raphael Zon recognized the need for
better forest management and proposed
that dedicated forest locations be created
to study the ecology and silvics of various
tree species. Since then, USDA Forest
Service Research and Development has
established 79 experimental forests and
ranges (EFRs) throughout the United States.
EFRs are long-lived laboratories where
Forest Service scientists and collaborators
discover, synthesize, and demonstrate
new knowledge for managing forests and
ranges in the United States and worldwide.
Since PREF was established, more than
600 publications from PREF studies have
provided information on basic forest ecology,
vegetation establishment, fire danger and
behavior, silvicultural methods and systems,
Quarterly Newsletter of the EFR Network
forest growth and yield, watershed function,
and tree genetics, to name a few.
These major contributions to forestry were
worthy of a centennial celebration, which
was held October 8–10, 2011. With more than
170 people in attendance, we celebrated the
place that meant so much to the life and
work of the over 200 researchers and families
who called PREF home for part of their lives.
The celebration began with a reenactment
of the inspection party led by Chief Graves
100 years ago. Scientists, the deputy chief,
the Panhandle National Forests supervisor,
and others entered the compound on
horseback and riding in horse-drawn wagons.
There were also exhibitions throughout the
headquarters area of the forest highlighting
PREF’s 100 years of research contributions.
During evening dinners and entertainment
there was plenty of time for reminiscing and
sharing stories about people, their work, and
research trials and tribulations.
Weather station.
Continued on next page
Page 7
E X P E R I M E N TA L F O R E S T H I S T O R Y
The Role of Experimental Forests (from page 7)
We also celebrated the people who
worked at PREF, and the surroundings (e.g.,
trees, dinner table, laboratory) that encouraged so many to be creative and productive.
As stated by Kathy Graham in her history
of PREF, “it takes a special personality to be
a forestry researcher, and those who have
made significant impacts on research have
that rare combination of curiosity, determination, patience, and knowledge. But they also
must be self-confident and in general display
a ‘do it my way’ attitude. Often this strongwilled attitude influenced the direction of the
research and the methods employed. They
had no instruction book then and are still
creating it now.”
This was certainly true for Harry T. Gisborne,
whose concepts of fire danger, fire behavior,
and forest fuels are still used today. Charles
E. “Mike” Hardy, now 95, shared captivating
stories of what it was like to work with Harry
Gisborne memorial.
Summer 2012
and his colleagues at PREF from 1921 through
1949. And for one young researcher in the
early 1950s, PREF inspired him to think about
ways of describing how forests grow. Albert
Stage, in his long and distinguished career,
went on to develop the Prognosis Model
(Forest Vegetation Simulator), which today
is used worldwide. Chuck Wellner was a
scientist who spent many early mornings
observing the growth and development of
white pine forests. Harry T. Gisborne was his
mentor, and Chuck passed on his passion and
knowledge to other young scientists such
as Russ Graham, Albert Stage, and Dennis
Ferguson. PREF and other experimental
forests (EFs) provide an ideal setting to
create and maintain this legacy of scientific
mentoring.
Finally, we celebrated the invaluable
contributions of PREF and all Forest Service
EFRs in producing relevant and timely
information on the ecology and management
of forests. Jim Guldin, from the Southern
Research Station, highlighted this when he
showed how Forest Service experimental
forests have contributed ecological (basic and
applied) and silvicultural knowledge for more
than 100 years in forests such as the longleaf
pine on the Palustris EF in Louisiana, eastern
white pine on the Penoscot EF in Maine, oak
and yellow poplar on the Bent Creek EF in
North Carolina, ponderosa pine on the Fort
Quarterly Newsletter of the EFR Network
Priest River Experimental Forest construction crew.
Valley EF in Arizona, Douglas-fir on the Wind
River EF in Washington, lodgepole pine and
aspen on the Fraser EF in Colorado, and
western white pine on PREF and Deception
Creek EF in Idaho.
As Raphael Zon had intended, EFRs are
dedicated locations and outdoor laboratories
essential for observing and studying ecosystems over decades. In this day and age of
instant gratification and immediate results,
these outdoor laboratories are vital locations
for observing and studying how ecosystems
develop and change over time. To paraphrase
Bob Marshall, who worked at PREF from 1925
to 1928, a 100-year-old western white pine
is a young tree that has centuries to live, this
can also be true for 100-year-old experimental
forests; they too have many centuries to
contribute to the science and management
of forests. 3
Page 8
NEWs
External Review of Rocky Mountain Research Station Experimental Forests and Ranges by Todd Mowrer
I
n 2006, the Rocky Mountain Research Station
(RMRS) reorganized from 32 research work
units to eight science programs. Prior to this, all
costs associated with the 14 RMRS experimental
forests and ranges (EFRs) were borne individually
by research work units. During the consolidation
process, the day-to-day EFR operating costs and
collection of established long-term data were
deemed to be stationwide (corporate) expenses.
This unprecedented realignment has worked
well in many regards. However, some initial
funding criteria had been adopted based on
past history and now was to be reevaluated in
light of current opportunities and directions. In
October 2011, the Station Leadership Team (SLT)
requested the assistance of outside EFR experts
to perform an external review of RMRS EFRs.
In January 2012, Station Assistant Director for
Science Application and Integration Jan Engert
and EFR Coordinator Todd Mowrer assembled
and facilitated a team of four scientists: Mary
Beth Adams (Northern Research Station), Jim
Guldin (Southern Research Station), Sherri
Johnson (Pacific Northwest Research Station),
and Peter Stine (National EFR Coordinator). All
had extensive knowledge and experience with
EFRs in their home stations. Mary Beth and Jim
are former chairs of the National Chartered EFR
Working Group. The team was charged with (1)
developing a decisionmaking framework that
Summer 2012
includes criteria for allocating future support for
RMRS EFRs and cost-saving opportunities, and (2)
providing advice and guidance on corporately
funded long-term data collection and on
collaborating with others to offset these costs.
Over a series of five video teleconferences, each
lasting up to 6 hours, and round-robin editing of
drafts, the team developed a 14-page report with
considerations for better identifying corporately
funded data and EFR evaluation and funding
criteria. Team member Jim Guldin presented the
team’s findings to the SLT at their April meeting in
Boise, Idaho. The team made four recommendations for leadership team consideration.
• Establish an RMRS EFR Council consisting of
EFR scientists-in-charge and selected program
managers with responsibility for corporate
oversight of the RMRS EFRs.
Researchers at Fraser Experimental Forest.
Quarterly Newsletter of the EFR Network
• Reexamine the list of corporate research
studies currently supported using the decision
criteria prepared by the review team.
• Prioritize RMRS EFRs for current and future
investment using the decision criteria
developed for the National EFR Strategic
Vision Statement and refined for RMRS by
the review team.
• Clarify the governance, line authority, and
budgeting for RMRS EFRs.
The ad hoc EFR subteam of the SLT is convening the EFR Council, which will address the last
three recommendations.
In complementing the review team process
to the SLT, Jim Guldin said, “considering that we
were unable to travel, the video teleconference
format worked exceedingly well with four people
interacting and being able to view the draft
document as it developed.” The team members
expressed their appreciation for the staff support
provided by Todd Mowrer in providing necessary
documentation and analyses, and to Jan Engert
for her support and for the opportunity to participate. Members felt that they all had benefitted
from the indepth exposure to the RMRS corporate
approach to EFRs. They also complimented the
station on taking this step by setting an example
in its comprehensive assessment and support
of EFRs. 3
Page 9
NEWs
New EFR Display Available For Use at Conferences and Other Events
T
o aid in our intention to increase awareness of
what we do with our experimental forests and
ranges (EFRs), we have developed a traveling display.
The display includes a large map that shows the location of every EFR in the United States as well as brief
text that highlights the story and accomplishments of
EFRs over the 100-plus year history. This 8- by 10-foot
display is intended to be used at a wide variety of
events such as conferences, celebratory events, meetings, etc., anywhere people gather to talk and think
about land and resource management. The display is
composed of four 2-½-foot-wide panels that easily link
together seamlessly and attach to a light frame. The entire
setup, including the panels, transport in two large cases via
our Forest Service Fed Ex accounts. If you have an upcoming event where this display would help, you can reserve
its use. Check the calendar for the EFR Traveling Display for
availability, and contact Peter Stine (pstine@fs.fed.us) to
make reservations. 3
National EFR Coordinator
Peter Stine shows off the
new display.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,
national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital
status, familial status, parental
status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political
beliefs, reprisal, or because all or
part of an individual’s income is
derived from any public assistance
program. (Not all prohibited bases
apply to all programs.) Persons
with disabilities who require alternative means for communication
of program information (Braille,
large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA’s TARGET Center at
(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To
file a complaint of discrimination,
write USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC
20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272
(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
United States
Department of Agriculture
Forest
Service
Experimental Forests and Ranges
is published quarterly by USDA
Forest Service Research and
Development
Peter A. Stine,
managing editor, 530-752-9991
pstine@fs.fed.us
Keith D. Routman,
editing and design,
503-808-2129
kroutman@fs.fed.us
Summer 2012
Quarterly Newsletter of the EFR Network
Page 10