Chapter 2.
Early Forest and Range Research
N
atural resource research in the U.S.
Department of Agriculture predated
the 1905 birth of the Forest Service, and
there were early calls for establishment
of experiment stations. In 1881, Franklin
Hough was appointed by Congress as
the first forestry agent in the Federal
Government, and assigned to USDA
to compile a statistical report on the
condition of U.S. forests. He soon was
appointed Chief of the new Division of
Forestry in USDA (West 1992).
Hough wrote several major reports on
forestry. One issued in 1882 included a
chapter titled Experimental Stations for
Forest Culture. The language strongly
urged establishment of forest experiment
stations (Storey 1975). Hough’s multivolume Report on Forestry (1878-1884)
also called for the creation of experiment stations.
In 1898, Gifford Pinchot, a Yale
graduate from a wealthy and influential
family, who had studied forestry in
France, became Chief of the Division
of Forestry. Pinchot was critical of
his predecessor, Bernard Fernow, for
emphasizing technical and theoretical
aspects of forestry over more practical
problems (Steen 1976). Despite his
criticism, Pinchot quickly established a
Section of Special Investigations, which
could be considered the research arm of
the Division of Forestry. Although definitions were imprecise, perhaps as much
as 25 percent of Pinchot’s early budget
was related to research (Steen 1998).
Under Pinchot, the Division of
Forestry began to grow, and in 1901
became the Bureau of Forestry in
USDA. Investigations on forestry,
forestry reserves, forest fires, and lumbering were permitted under the 1901
appropriations act, and forest products
studies that had been suspended in 1896
were restarted (Storey 1975). Pinchot’s
President Theodore Roosevelt (left) and
Gifford Pinchot charted a course for
natural resource conservation in the
United States.
the effort of the Division of Forest
Investigations would not be classified as
research. “Investigators” often offered
empirical conclusions rather than tested
hypotheses. They seldom made rigorous
scientific inquiries into problems, but
rather conducted random experiments
or based recommendations on limited
observations. Nevertheless, the work
reflected Pinchot’s realization that
programs of practical forestry could only
succeed if supported by sound information obtained through research efforts
(Storey 1976).
The first experimental range area
opened in 1903 as the Santa Rita Range
Reserve near Tucson. The first forest
experiment station opened in 1908 at
Fort Valley, Arizona, and 5 years later
there were six (Steen 1998). Two of the
early experimental areas, Priest River
and Great Basin, were the forerunners of
the Intermountain Station.
Grazing Studies
vision for the Bureau of Forestry was
undoubtedly helped by the election of
Theodore Roosevelt as President in
1901. Here was a President who had
a strong conservation ethic, and was a
friend of Pinchot’s. It was a friendship
that aided in the growth and influence of
the bureau.
Under Pinchot, the Section of
Special Investigations soon became a
division with 55 employees, and then
was merged with the Division of Forest
Investigation and the Division of Forest
Management to encompass all technical
studies. This merged division accounted
for one-third of the Bureau of Forestry’s
$185,000 annual budget (Steen 1976).
In terms of the Forest Service’s
current research program, much of
Pinchot was aware of the importance
of grazing in the National Forests that
were formed in 1905 with the birth of
the Forest Service. His interest was
appropriate, for in the early years following the transfer of the forest reserves
to the Forest Service, grazing produced
more revenue than timber (Pisani 1992).
Although Pinchot had recognized that
grazing problems were the most significant ones facing the forest reserves,
early range research began in USDA’s
Division of Botany under Frederick
Colville, rather than in the Division of
Forestry.
Colville believed sheep would not
harm the range if properly controlled.
He began studies of sheep grazing
–
in the Oregon Cascades in 1897 to
confirm or refute his beliefs. Grazing
research, such as it was, continued
under this arrangement until 1901 when
it was placed in the Bureau of Forestry
(West 1992).
Range research was given technical
direction by the Office of Grazing in the
Branch of Grazing in the Washington
Office. Two of the earliest range
researchers were James Jardine and
Arthur Sampson, who in 1907 conducted studies to determine the grazing
capacity of the Wallowa National Forest
in Oregon. Their work provided the
basis for deferred and rotation grazing,
which addressed the issues of carrying
capacity and numbers of stock that
could be grazed in an area (West 1992).
Three years later Jardine went on to
establish and head the Office of Grazing.
Sampson became a key person in the
development of the Intermountain
Station and of range science generally.
Early range experiments in reseeding
overgrazed areas in the Intermountain
District (District 4) territory were also
under way at this time (Alexander
1987).
Silviculture and Products
Silviculture and forest products
research were in the domain of the
Office of Silvics in Washington. This
effort was headed by Raphael Zon, who
got his natural resources education at the
New York College of Forestry at Cornell
University. Zon believed that scientific
research was essential to sound resource
management, a view not shared by many
at the time. Zon has been considered by
some as the founder of Forest Service
Research. He established several of the
first experiment stations, including Priest
River.
All Forest Service research seemed
to be carried out in rather fragmented
fashion in those early days, and forest
products research was no exception.
There were reports of the Forest
Service studying the treatment of
lodgepole pine for railroad ties in
conjunction with several railroad
companies (Alexander 1987), but most
–
Fire Studies
Raphael Zon, who established the
Priest River Experiment Station in 1911,
fought hard as a Forest Service official
and editor of the Journal of Forestry for
the principle that sound resource management required a scientific basis.
of the forest products work was done
at various universities. In an effort to
centralize forest products research, Zon
selected the University of Wisconsin
in Madison as the site for the Forest
Products Laboratory (FPL). This was
significant because FPL was the first
substantial research laboratory within
the Forest Service.
When FPL was dedicated in 1910,
Chief Henry Graves, who left his
position as Dean of the Yale Forestry
School to replace Pinchot, was there
to preside. In 1912, he set up the
Central Investigative Committee in
Washington with Zon as chairman.
Zon represented silviculture; James
Jardine, grazing; and Carlisle (Cap)
Winslow, forest products. One of the
major functions of the committee was
to distinguish between administrative
and investigative studies (Steen 1976).
“Investigations” was the term commonly used then for what we would
call “research” today.
Graves had a major concern with
wood waste in harvest and manufacture,
and was in favor of centralizing forest
products research at FPL (Steen 1976).
A side effect of FPL’s establishment
was the reduction, if not complete phase
out, of cooperative research between the
Forest Service and universities. It wasn’t
until the 1960s that the cooperative
research program was reinstituted in a
major way (Steen 1976).
Fire research had begun under
Pinchot when he authorized the study of
5,000 forest fires cataloged since 1754 to
better understand the damage caused by
fires. The urgency for and the emphasis
on fire research increased dramatically
when the fires of 1910 burned more than
3 million acres in northern Idaho and
western Montana, killing 80 fire fighters.
Later, Chief Graves was appalled by
proposals originated by scientists to use
fire beneficially. He said it was inconceivable. There was concern among the
Forest Service leadership that the public
was confused by the concept of “good”
and “bad” fires.
Graves and some on his staff also
feared that complaints would be raised
in the public and political arenas that
the Forest Service was wasting money
on research when the National Forests
weren’t well protected from fire. And,
there were those in the Forest Service
who even challenged the idea that
research was a legitimate Forest Service
function. Graves also took the position
that no general expense money was
to be used for research. Instead, the
strategy was to ask Congress directly to
appropriate funds for that purpose (Steen
1976).
Water Studies
In addition to interest in grazing and
wildfire problems, water quantity and
quality was a major Forest Service concern. Flood control was an issue in the
humid and populous East; water availability was always of prime importance
to the semi-arid West. Early watershed
research began in 1900 with a cooperative project between the Forest Service
and the Weather Bureau at Wagon
Wheel Gap in the Rio Grande National
Forest in Colorado. The study evaluated
the effect of timber removal on water
yields and helped ensure passage of the
Weeks Law (West 1992).
The Weeks Law of 1911 authorized
the Forest Service to buy land for
National Forests for watershed
protection and flood control in the East.
Foresters favored watershed protection
for flood control, while the Army Corps
of Engineers favored construction of
dams and levees.
Private land purchase by the Federal
Government in the East was in marked
contrast to the long-standing Federal
policy of disposing of public lands in
the West (West 1992). Acquisition of
land for National Forests in the East not
only reflected concern for protecting
resources and property, but worked
to change the Forest Service from a
“western agency” to one representing
national interests; thus its constituency
and political clout also increased (West
1992). This change in Forest Service
responsibilities was important to the
Intermountain Station because it became
a factor in annual competitions for
research program dollars.
Insect Studies
The forest fires of 1910 burned 3 million acres and caused many deaths.
The city of Wallace, Idaho was devastated (below) as seen in this photo
looking east into the main business district. The fires created public
awareness of the need for fire research as well as better wildfire control.
In the early days, research on forest
insects and diseases was not a Bureau
of Forestry responsibility. Those studies
were carried out in USDA’s Bureau
of Entomology and Bureau of Plant
Industry. However, the importance of
these investigations, particularly insect
work, was not lost on Gifford Pinchot.
In 1899, Pinchot’s first full year as
head of the Division of Forestry, he
appointed Andrew D. Hopkins as a
collaborator to investigate forest insect
problems in the Pacific Northwest.
Three years later, Pinchot influenced
the Bureau of Entomology to name
Hopkins head of the newly created
Division of Forest Insect Investigations.
In that era, the insects responsible for
problems in American forests were
mostly unknown and undescribed.
Hopkins endeavored to change that
situation by specializing in bark beetle
research and hiring and training field
personnel (Furniss 2003).
Forest insect investigations began
in the Northern Rocky Mountains in
1909 when Hopkins appointed Joseph
Brunner, a big game hunter and writer
who had some forestry training, as a
field representative. Brunner had written
to Pinchot wondering about the name
–
of the “little bug that makes the inner
bark of freshly fallen trees its primary
breeding place.” Pinchot referred the
letter to Hopkins, and the contact
resulted in Brunner’s hiring to do field
work throughout the northern Rockies.
Brunner’s office was in Missoula.
Throughout his tenure, Brunner was
antagonistic toward the Forest Service.
His issues were primarily about Forest
Service managers “dragging…their
feet” and being inept in bark beetle
control compared to other agencies and
landowners. He also questioned Forest
Service attitudes about the relative
importance of fire and insects, and their
relationships (Furniss 2003).
Brunner was skeptical when Jim
Evenden, a Forest Service employee,
was assigned as one of his assistants
after being hired as an Entomological
Ranger in 1914 (at a $900 annual salary), although he later said Evenden
“appears to be promising material…”
Evenden, however, quickly became
dissatisfied with his new position. To
keep him in the Bureau of Entomology,
Hopkins moved him to Coeur d’Alene
in northern Idaho to set up a sub-station.
Evenden remained there, except for a
break for military service during World
War I, until he retired a year after being
assigned to the Intermountain Station at
the end of 1953.
The head-strong Brunner had a falling out with Hopkins over a personnel
matter in 1917 and was separated from
government service. After Brunner left,
the Missoula office was closed, and
forest insect operations in the Northern
Rocky Mountains were centered at
Coeur d’Alene under Evenden’s supervision (Furniss, in preparation).
The Branch of Research
Forest Service research programs
underwent significant change in 1915.
Chief Henry Graves established the
Branch of Research, replacing the
Central Investigative Committee.
Earle Clapp, one of the assistant chief
foresters, was put in charge of research
and remained so until 1935 when he
10–
became associate chief (and later served
as acting chief through the World War II
years).
The Branch of Research at first was
composed of three sections: (1) Forest
Investigations headed by Raphael Zon,
(2) Industrial Investigations, and (3) the
Forest Products Laboratory. All Forest
Service research except grazing was
brought together within the Branch of
Research.
Establishment of the Branch of
Research was significant because
researchers had complained for years
that they were denied recognition and
independence from National Forest
administrators. Thus, Clapp’s appointment meant that the chief forester
would settle any disputes between the
assistant chief forester for research and
the other assistant chief foresters. Even
after this action, some controversy
continued over whether the Washington
Office research branch or the District
offices should set research priorities.
As time went on the drift was toward
the Washington Office. Clapp’s view
was that research should be responsible
only to Washington, and that District
participation stifled research (Steen
1976).
The associate forester (later called
the associate chief) at the time, Albert
Potter, was a research advocate. He
thought that the research program was
the main reason the Forest Service
was in Agriculture rather than Interior
(Prevedel and Johnson 2005). However,
when discussions were held on integrating range investigations with the other
research programs, Potter appealed
directly and successfully to the Secretary
of Agriculture to keep the range studies
under grazing administration (Steen
1998).
The United States entrance into
World War I in 1917 caused a major
disruption for the Forest Service because
so many people went into military service. Much of the research program was
dropped or curtailed, with the notable
exception of war effort research centered
at FPL.
Because of the diffuse nature of the
research organization and continuing
flat funding for research, Clapp in 1921
began to publish his ideas about the
need for forest experiment stations.
He covered the why, where, what, and
costs proposed for this type of research
organization (Storey 1975).
Congressional Support
The Annual Report of the Forest
Service in both 1922 and 1924 cited the
research program as lacking focus and
recognition of its importance. The reports called for unifying legislation and
specific Congressional support (Steen
1976). Congress did, in fact, take some
notice of Forest Service research in its
passage of the 1924 Clarke-McNary
Act. The act added two areas of
research: (1) Effects of tax laws on
forest perpetuation, and (2) practical
methods of protecting standing timber
in growing forests from losses by fire
and other causes (Storey 1975).
The Office of Grazing Studies in
the Branch of Grazing was transferred
to the Branch of Research within the
Washington Office in 1926, bringing
all Forest Service research together. W.
R. Chapline, who replaced Jim Jardine
in 1920, continued as the director of
range research (Storey 1975). Chapline
began his career as a grazing assistant
under Arthur Sampson at Great Basin,
1913-1914.
Also in 1926, the American Tree
Association published a 232-page report,
A National Program of Forest Research,
produced by the Society of American
Foresters’ committee on research. In
the report Earle Clapp outlined what he
called an organic act for Forest Service
research. Clapp wanted $1 million for
the Forest Products Lab, $1 million to be
shared by experiment stations, $500,000
for forest inventory, and $250,000 to
study grazing. The report included a
description of regional experiment
stations, among them a Northern Rocky
Mountain Forest Experiment Station for
investigations of western white pine,
larch-fir, and other forests in Idaho,
Montana, and eastern Washington and
Oregon (Steen 1976).