Jerry F.Franklin,Co ege of ForestResourcesBox 352100 Universty of Washngton
Seatte Washlngton
98T952100
Logan A. Norris,Departmentof ForestSc ence OregonSlaleUn versityCorvals Oregon973315705
Washngton98026
Dean R. Berg, S v cu turaland ForestEngneering,1580660thAve West Edrnonds.
98T072030
Gordon R. Smith, EcoFor209 Northwest58thStreet Seatte. Washington
Harvest
The Historyof DEMO:An Experimentin Regeneration
of NorthwesternForestEcosystems
Abstract
As managcmentpriorities for fedefal forest lands havc shiftcd. it has becorneclear that different slralegiesibr harvcstand torest
rcgcncrationare needed. The DEMO experimcnr arosc in responseto this need. with leadershipprolidcd by a consortilrn of
universit,vand Forest Service scienlislsand iederal forest managers. With specific corgrcssionaldirection (ircluded in fedefal
appropriarionsfor ihe Foresl Servicc).thc inirial planning for an experimentin relendon harvcs!stralegiesbeganin 1992. Initial
planning effofts wefe hamperedb) compctingresearchobjectivesand disagreemeltsover cxpcrimental design.shifts in progf.rm
leadership.difficulties in transferringfunds to the approprjateentities.and conflicts related|o thc Fcdcral Advisory Committee
Act. ln 199:1,once rhesechallengeswere overcomc.thc experimenlbegan.
DEMO is not only an cxpcriment in retentionhaNesting.bur also in collaboralionbetweenreseafchand manrgement..rs$ell
as federal and strte go!cmment! and the university community. The scopc and intcnsity ofcollaboration have been denanding.
requiring ellecti!c communicariooand coordination acrossinstilulional lines. The early history of DENTOhas taught us lhrl
expedmen|soflhis kjnd require: ( I ) a coordinatedlegisladvcpackageand muld-,vearbudgetcomnitneni, (2 ) a $ ell devclopcd
managc cn! s!ructure,(l) an efficient pfocesslbrplanning. (:1)commitment oflead scientiststo the coordinutil'n andplan.ing of
disciplinary and interdisciplinary resertrchactiliries, (5) cftlctive collaboralion betweenre\earch and m nagcncnt. and (6) a
well dcvclopedoutreachprogram. Other ]arye scalesilvicuhural/ecologicalexpedments$ith characteristicssimilff lo DEIvlO
are underwa] al scvcrallocationsaroundthe world. Thesewill offcr additional learning ofportunities fbr large-scale,interdisci
lntroduction
A common perceptionof trrditional resource
managementis that it is basedon scientific experimentation.In this paradigmaticview, scientific findings in the fields of soil science,ecology, and plant physiology are used to lbrmulate
managementapproachesthat are testedprior to
widespreadapplication.
Yct sucha systematicapproachto lirrest managementhasbeenrare-at leastin NofihAmerica
during the 20th century. For example.there has
statistically
ncver been a credible.large-scale,
designedexperirnentin regenerationhaNest of
Douglas-fir forests of the Paciflc Northwcst.
Dispersedpatch clearcuttingadoptedon national
forestsin the Pacific Northwest aticr World war
II wasconsistent
with thefindingsoflsaac(19rt3)
and others; however, the concept was applied
extensiyely$ithout experimentaltesting. Alternativeapproaches,
suchasselectioncutting,wgre
rejectedbasedon a t-ewcasestudies. Other har-
vest expedments\\"eredoneat a very small scale
and generally lacked statisticalrigor. especially
et al.( 1997)
statistically
validreplication;Tappeiner
provide a more comprehensivereview ofthe evol u r i , , no i h r r \ c . l i n gm e t h o d i.n t h er e g i o n .
New societaldemandsandincreasedscientific
knowledge are driving major changesin tirrest
managementwhich requireintegrationof ccological values(suchas maintenanceof biological diversity) with commodity production (Kohm and
Franklin1997). Underintensescrutinylrom interestedstakeholders,managersare faced with
developingandapplyingneq unprovenapproaches
to forestn;uragement.Althoughpresumablybased
upon the bestavailablcscience,the economicand
ecologicalcosts,benefits,andoveralleftectiveness
of thesenew approaches
areunknown. Thisisthc
caseon f'ederal,state.and privatc forest lands in
ct al. 1996).
thePacificNorthwest(e.g..Tuchmann
The new paradigmlbrtesting suchapproaches
is calledadaptivenaragcruerl althoughin aless
NofihwestScience.
Vol. 73, SpecialIssue.199!.)
r., l90rl b) rhe I\oihren
S ! r e n r r f r cA \ { i . r r 1 r , n
All nghr r.\.r!Li
fonnal form. the concepthas sxistcd for several
decades.Adaptivemanagementcalls for the sys
temillic ilnd iteliltive iollce tion of inlormation to
assess
and,wherenecessary,
moditypoliciesand
managementstrategies.Scienceis an important
pad of this process.Yet, experimentswhich involve large treatmentareasand long periods of
time are difficult to establishand maintain.
Olympic StateExperimentalForest(OSEF)to bc
createdfrom a large block of trust lands managed by the WashingtonDepartmentof Natural
Resources(WDNR). Developmentand testing
of silvicultural approachesthat integratewildlife
(including the spottedowl) and fish valueswith
commodity production were a high priority objectiveof the experimental
tbrest.
In this paper,we descdbethe evolution of a
trrajorexperimentin retentionharvesting.the
Demonstration
of EcosystemManagementOptions (DEMO) study. We describethe origin of
the experiment,the role of an institutional parlnership(New PerspectivePartners)in obtaining
congressional
support,and the developmentof
the experimentaldesignthroughseveraliterations.
Our objcctiveis to sharelessons\\"ith othgrswho
become involved in such projects. Finally. we
identi[yotherlarge-:calc.
:rlr iculturllcr.periment.
to illu.tratethe rrnge of Iarfe .crle erperimen
tation in modernresourcemanagement.These
r includrngDEVO r rcflectan increa.erperirrents
ingly commonblendofresearchandmanagement
that is essentialto the implementationof ecosystem management.
A major tbrest harvest experimentwas proposed as a potential "flagship" activity for the
newly establishedONRC. This experimentwould
not only addressa major researchneed.but also
sen'e as a lbcal point for creating an interdisci
plinary,inter-institutional
environmenttbr resqrch
on the Olympic Peninsula.Design work was initiatedin December1991by Dean R. Berg. then a
staff member of ONRC, and Jeny F. Franklin.
WDNR staffin ForksandOlympia were included
in discussions
fiom the onset.
Conceptionand EarlyHistory
The needto examinethe effectivenessofalternatives to traditional silvicultural regimes,such as
clearcutting.
hasbeenrecognizedamongfbresters and scientistsfor several decades(e.g.,
Hammond1991). The northernspottedowl debate (see,e.9.. Thomaset al. 1990)and other issuesrelatedto biologicaldiversityand ecosystem functions,suchashydrologicregulation(see.
e.g., Jonesand Grant 1996). intensilied interest
in alternative
silvicultureduringthe 1980s.Concurently, our understandingof ecosystemstruc
ture and function (e.g..Franklin 1992).natural
disturbances(e.g.,Franklin et al. 1995),and the
consequences
manipulation
of large-scale
of tbrestlandscapes,suchasfragmentation(e.g..Fmnklin
and Forman 1987),expandeddramatically.
In 1991,therewas an opportunityto establish
a major harvestexperimentthat would integrate
ecologicalandcommodityobjectiveson theOlympic Peninsulaof WashingtonState. In 1989,the
Commission on Old Growth Alternativesfbr
Washington'sForestTrust Lands recommended
creation of a new researchfacility, the Olympic
Natural ResourcesCenter(ONRC), aswell as an
Franklin.Norris,Berg,and Smith
A detailedplan was completedin May 1992
after review of preliminary designsby scientists
and staff tiom the ONRC. WDNR, and USDA
Forest ServicePacific Northwest ResearchSta
tion in Olympia, Washington. The plan called
1br a split-plot design involving eight structural
treatmentsand two logging systems(readen untamiliar with the conceptof retentionharuest
methodsandrelatedconcapts,suchasaggregates,
are referredto Franklin et al. 1997). The treat
mentsinitiallywere:(l) 0% retention(clearcut);
(2) 127cretention in dispersedand aggregated
tashion. respectively].(3) 21c/cretention in dispersedand aggregatedfashion, respectively;(4)
60 and 807cretention,with harvestin the fbrm of
group selection: and (5) untreatedcontrol. Responsevariablesincluded tree growth and yield.
u n d e r . t o r cy o m p o ' i t i o nt.r e er e g e n c r a t i , rrnn.i mal communities,fungal communities.and the
sourcesand dynamicsof coarsewoody debris.
A simplified plan involving only six treatments
eventuallyemergedfrom this scopingeffon (Olympic Natural ResourcesCenter 1992).
ExtensivediscussionsbetweenONRC and
WDNR staff continued with regardto location,
particularly whether plots should be placed in
second-growthfbrestsof the Clallam River drainageor in old-growthfbrestselsewherein the proposedOSEF.Differencesin opinionreflectedboth
scientificissues(e.g.,homogeneityor levelsof
comparabilityanong keatmentareas)and policy.
One manageropined, for example. that "Much
reserrchis being conductedon nlanglingLsic'll
sccond growth lbrests. Some should occur on
pdme
the OSEF.. . . lhoweverl the Depi,rrtment's
interestin researchis in finding ways to produce
from theseold growth tbrcst lsicl
conrmodities
while at the sametime protcctingthe ecological
wasleached,andWDNR
ralues."rNo conscnsus
chosenot to proceedwith the experimentat that
tine.
Partners
Enterthe NewPerspectives
Early in the 1990s.it becamcapparentthat implementation ol ecosystemmanagement$as hampered by lack of research especially rescarch
While strongrcsearch
integlatedrvithmanagenrent.
programsexistedin the region,they were poorly
coordinatedand disjointed with nanagement
worked
in somecases.researchers
andmanagcrs
In an cffort to mininize such
at cross-purposes.
problems. the EcosystemManagenrentPartnership was formed (the Damewas changedlater to
New PerspectivesPaftners). New partners\!gre
added.but |he odginatinginstitutionsand individualsremainedactivc,providing the leadership
andcontinuity.
lnitially thepartnershipincludcdscientistsfiom
Uriversitl of Washington.OregonStateUniversity. the USDA ForestSer\,icePaciflc Nofthwest
RcsearchStatior.innovatorsfrom thcAedal Forcst
ManagementFoundation,and resourcemanagcrs l'roln the USDA ForestServicePacillc Notlh
\l'estRegion. The group proposeda coordinated
researchand
effort in ecosystemnranagement
as well as a mechanismtirr funddevelopmenl.
ing. Basedon their work. specificfcdcral appro
pdations were nradeto supportecosystemmanagementrescarchand developmentat the thrcc
rcsearchinstitutionsand the Aerial ForestMan
agemcntFoundation.
Working with nembers ofCongress,the palt
nels emphasizedthc nced for expelimeotson alto lbrest harvestingand sugternativctrpproaches
gestedhou, suchstudiesmight be implemented
on lederal and statc lands in the Pacific Notthwcst.At the sametine, the DouglasProjectCoa
l i t i o n r i r l , ' e u le r o u po f i n t e t e . l e dh u . i t t e s . m e n
and citizenstr.omDouglasCounty, Oregon)was
rlso seckingfunding for a larye-scalestudy and
dcmonstration
on the biologicrl.social,andeco
nomic consequencesol divcrse forest managementstratcgies.
The l02nd Congressquickly responded.On
June29. 1992.the HouseCommjtteeon Appropriationsreportedthe "Dcpartnent ofInterior and
Bill. I 993."which
RclatedAgenciesAppropriation
providedtbr establishmentof silviculturalexperimentson NationalForestland (U.S. Housc of
Reprcsentatives
l992). Languagein thisbill (under
the timber salessection of the National Forest
".
Systcmsappropriation)calledfbr . . An incrcase
in silviculturalexamination.
These
of $1.000,000
funds, along with $ 1,000,000in basefunds to be
redirectedtirr this purpose,areto be providedtirr
thc Pacific NW New PerspectivePaftnersdemonsfation program. These funds will be used,
under the joint control of the scientistsdirecting
the program uDderthe Forest researchprogram
and the NFS mrnrger. involred.lo support\cientific costsassociatedwith the establishmentof
one major silvicultural experirnelt eachin Washington and Oregon,using new tbrestry and landtechniques."
scapemanirgement
In the final versionof thc AppropriationsAct
tbr FiscalYear 1993.Congresscombinedtunding requestsfiom the Olympic NaturalResoulces
CenterandDouglasProjectCoalitioninto a S1.5
million earmark,directin-qthe Forest Seruiceto
conductdcmonstrationsin consultationwith the
PafinersandDouglasProjectCoalition. Key conpressional
membersbehindthisprovisionincluded:
S i d Y r r c . t l L r r l h e nc h a i ro l t h c i r p p r o p r i r t i , , n
subcommitteewhich handledForestServicebud
gets).Norm Dicks (WA), Les Aucoin (OR). Sid
Morison (WA). andPetcrDeFazio(OR),andin
thc Senate.Mark Hatfield (OR).
Design
Developing
the Experimental
With direction and financial supportfrom Cong r e \ \ .p l a n n i n gf o r t h ce r p e r i m e nht c e u ni n c i ] r nest. In Dccember 1992,the New Perspectives
Partners'ScientiflcCurrdination Teamproduced
a consensusdoculllenton the folm of the experiment. Their designemphasizeda broad rangcof
Ievelsof green-treeretention\4'iththe patten] of
retention(i.c.,dispersed
vs. aggregated)
secondary. The design was similar to that dcveloped
earlier by ONRC, but it contained seventrcatiDseveral
ments.Levelsofretentionwereincreased
of fie treatments(e.g.,from 12 to 20cl,:and 2:l to
.10%)rellecting federalfbrest land manage$' interestsin higherlevelsofretention.Twentyhectares
(50 acrcs)wassuggested
astheminimumtreatment
History of the DEMO Stud)'
alra. Numerousfesponsevariableswele identificd includingphysical.biological,andeconomic
parameters.
analysisindicatedthat,dueto limSubsequent
ited availability offield sites,only six treatments
were possible.Findingeventhe 180ha needed
for a singlcrcplicationof six treatments
of comparableforest standsand site conditions proved
difTicult. No suitablesiteswere fbund on the
Olympic National Forest. originally planned as
the localc tin DEMO in the stateef Washington;
hencethe expedmentwas shifted to the Gifford
PinchotNational Forcstwhere sitestbr threereplicationswcrcultimatelyfbund(Aubryet al. 1999.
Halpernet al. 1999).An additionalWashington
replicatewas sitgd on Departmentof Natural
ResourcesLand, largely through the effbrts of
WashingtonCommissioner
of PublicLandsJennifer Belcher and Gifford Pinchot National Forcst SupervisorTed Stubblefield.Sitessuitable
for four replicationsofthe experimcntwere identitred on the Umpqua National Forestin Orcgon.
paftially dueto the interestsofthe DouglasPrciect
Coalition:ForestSupen'isorDon Ostbywascritical
in this successt'ul
sitingeftbrt.
Next. researchforcstcrs at the USDA Forest
Service Pacilic Northwest ResearchStation in
Olympia. Washingtonconductedmuch of the
detaileddesignwork on DEMO through 1993.
A neu' design emergedthat incorporateda 1'u11
rangcof rctcntionlevelsbut substantiallv
modilled the tr.eatments
previously proposed:
Trcdttn(It
]tt
)O',t
10'i.
6O.tL
807
l00t/.
Descriptbtl
clciucul
rctnlionin smrll patchesoraggregates(=clearcut
u'ith undi\lurbcd palchct
209ti ar aggregatesand 20t; is dispcrscd rclcn
tion over the remrinirg 80% of the harlest unit
(= \hcllcrwood rilh un(li\luftlrd prrches)
crearedby cutting sJnallpatchesoccup\ing 20.1
o f t h e x r e aa n dt h i n n i n gt h er e m a i n d eor f t h e s t a n d
( = g r o u ps e l e c r i ( )\nr i t h i h i n n i n g )
createdb) cutling small patchesoccuf) ing 20t:
0f lhe area (= group selectiur)
uncul conrol
Although this designwas clearly tied to tradil i o n l l r e g u n c r l t i , 'hnl r r c s tp r u c t i c e 'i .t u r . . , ' n fbundedexperimentallyin thatlevelsandpattems
of green-tree retention varied simultaneously.
precludingthc possibilityof ascribingtreatmentlevel differencesto the amountor spatialpatternFranklin, Norris. Bcrg. and Smith
ing of retention. This was viewedas a senous
i . . u e b ) p r t t i e i p a n tu. h o u i . h u J t o \ ) . l e r n r i t i cally examinc rcsponsesto individual tt'eatment
variables. Indeed.a great deal of silvicultural
experimentationcan bc criticized for its tbcus on
conparisonsof generalizedsilvicultural systerns.
suchas shelterwoodand selection.ratherthan on
systematic
manipulation
ofa singlevariable.such
astree densityor spatialpattem ofharvest. Such
comparisons.
whichtypicallyinvolvesimultaneous
manipulationof severalvariables,strongly limit
the forester'sability to draw generalinferences
irboutthe effectsofmanipulating forestslructure.
Resolutionof altenative experimcntalapproachesoccupiedmuch of the springof 1994.
Two conceptuallydistinct approacheswere proposedand debated: a comparisonof specific silvicultural prescriptionsin which severalaspects
of retentionvaried simultaneously(the design
describedabove),or r systematiccompadsonof
variation in levels and pattemsof retention. Inp u l f r o mb i o m c l r i c i a nl nr J q u r n t i t r t ier . r i e n t i s t .
wascriticalin thesediscussions.
The debateculminatedin a meetingon May 2, 1994.Participantsin DEMO madethe decisionto proccedwith
a design that allowed lbr clear statistical interencesrcgardingthe eff'ectsof level and pattemof
green-tree
retention(seeAubry et al. 1999).The
treatmentsincludcd: 15% retention,dispersed:
:107r,
l5% retention,aggregated;
retention.dispersed;407c retention, aggrcgated:757r retention, aggregated;and 100% retention(control).
Thc first ti)ur treatmentsprovide for a sinple
factorialcomparisonof two levelsand two pattems of retention.and the last representsan untrcatedcontrol. The natureofthe lilth treatment
generatedsignificantdebaie.Sone suggcstedoal,
retention(a clcarcut).whereasotherspretered a
treatmcntthat representeda high level of reten
tion. This issuewas discussedat length.with
National Forest Systemmanagersproviding the
d e c i d i n gr o t e i o r 7 5 ; r c r c n t i o n .A t i \ . u e \ \ i l \
whether a clearcuttreatmentcould or should be
applied on National Forestlands (sincethis prescriptionwasno lon-qer
used).as well asa desire
to cxperiment\\ ith higherlevelsofretention. The
discomfoftofmany NationalForcstpe$onnelwas
accentuatedby the knowledge that they had no
control ovef where the oEr retention treatment
wouldbe placedsinceit wasto be randomlyassigned.Ofcourse.scientists
oftenhaveusedexperimental treatmcntsoutside the bounds of
standardoperationalpracticcsto provide testsof
treatmentvariablesthat arc sufflciently extrenre
to detinethc limits of the responses i.e.,to define the rcsponsesurfirce.Ho*evcr, it rvasjointly
involved
decidcdby the managersand scientists
in DEMO not to do so in this case.
Even though the original design work lor
DEMO precededthe $ (nt of thc ForestEcosys
tcm Management
AssessnentTeam( 1993),the
final DEMO plan consideredthe needsof. and
was an appropriateresponseto. the Nonhwcst
Forest Plan. provicling a rigorous evaluation of
the individual effects of various levels and pattemsof greentreereteltion. As describedin the
"The DEMO design
linal study plan for DEMO.
is cxpcctedto providereliableandbroiidlyappliofgreen treere
cableinfornrationon thc cl.fucts
lentioDin harvestunits. as well as inlormation
on disturbanccresponsesand resourceinterelationshipsin managedlbrest stands"(Anon. 1996).
"cleancst" test possible
Of course.to ensurethe
of the rnain variablesof interest (level and pattcrn of green tree retention), some other provir i o n sr r l r h eN o n h u u . tI o r e ' t P l a nl e . g . r. c q u i r e mentsfor ripadan buffers)were not implcmcntcd
on the harvcst units. The Plan allows 1br such
deviationswhel necessaryfbr a scientiticcxperiment of this sort.
Lessonsfor the Future
DEMO has providedvaluableinsightsinto the
initiation,developmcnt.and implementationof
research-parliculargescale,multidisciplinary
larly researclrthat stcmsftom problemsin natu
ral rcsourcepolicy and intimately involvesthose
chargedwith its implementation.We hrvc lcamcd
n r u n ; l e . r , ' n . .r l r h u u p h$ e h u r r o n l l j u . t c o m
pleted pre treaonent sampling. with harvesting
underwal at somc locations. These lessonsare
nost relevant to public sector projects (such as
DEMO), but thc principlesarebroadlyapplicable:
7. A coordinated legislativepackage. Typr
cally. researchis conductedindependeDt
of resourcemanagement(althoughclellrly intcnded
to addressits needs).Efforts like DEMO that rcquire explicit interactionbetwecnrcscarchand
managementand are long-term jn naturewill requireeftectiveenrpowcmrcnt1osucceed.Specific
legislativedircction is a comnon vehicle tbr this
purpose.Efforts suchas DEMO shouldhave: (1)
fu'mlegislativeor executileauthority.(2) financial
authodzation,(3) a policy tiarnework thrt allows
researchand managementto collaborateef'fectivcly (e.9..that allows transferoffunds). and (:[)
clearly articulatedobjectivescovering the entire
duratjon of the program (to ensurestability).
DEMO hasevolvedthrougha piecemealapproach
in its iegislativeauthorization.It has rcccivcd
lundingon an annualbasis.but only throughncgotiation,and with no assistance
in bridging some
of the policy elementsthat make collaboration
difficult- Some
betweenresearchandmanagement
of theseneedshavebeenpaftiallymct through
adoptionof a new Memoranthe administrative
dum ofUnderstandingby RcgionalForcstcrRobcn
Williarns and PacificNorthwestResearchStation
DirectorTom Mi11s.
?^ A well-developed,cleqrl! articulated msnqgementstructure. Managementmodelswith a
clear chrrter and an eft'ectivedecision-rnaking
processwill be mostsuccessful.
DEMO hasbeen
changesrn rtsmtnchallenged
by ratherdramatic
agementstructure.in partdueto conflictsinvolving
the FederalAdvisory Committcc Act (FACA) or,
at leastthe agenq/'s interpretationof FACA. FACA
resultedin the rcmoval of key university faculty
from dirgct involvementin decisionsaboutthe
ofthc study,includin-q
designor inrplementation
for thc
sorneof the peoplewho werercsponsible
original congressionaldirection and fundin-9.
Fortunatclythis did not happenuntil afler the
debatesabout the experinental design had con
plancluded;however,it did meanthatsubsequent
ning and implementation
td)k placewithoutthe
direct involvcmcntof the instigators.Creation
ola ScicntificOversightCommitteeanda DEMO
to
Coordinating
Groupwereusefulcontributions
thc managementstructure. The DEMO Coordinating Group has beer critical to resolution of
issuesassociated
with implementation
ofthe experinrentand allocationof resources.Among
variouspossibleapproaches
would be: (1) early
dcvclopmcntof a more fomal structurefor decision making and implementation with defined
(2) modificationofFACA (or its
responsibilities.
application) to allo\\, continued involvement of
personnelin designand irnplekey non-agency
r l e n l J l i r \rn\ l I h L ' p r , i c c rl .n d r . l r l : o n l l n u i li )l
personneladministeringthe project.
3. An fficient research planning process.
Large-groupscienceis extremelydifficult to conduct. lt requires strong centralized leadership.
Hirtor) of the DEMO Studv
Leadershipin the early planningstagesof DEMO
w r . d i f l u ' ea n du n e r e nr.e s u l t i nign f a rt o om a n l
fundamentaldesign changes. Thc level of "democracy"involvedwas nearJyfatal. Large-scale,
interdisciplinaq' elperiments that addressresearchnanagement issues will be fiaught with many
problcms-someconceptual,
othersoperational.
During the evolution of the DEMO design,conceptualproblemsincludedtirndamentaldisagreementsaboutthe inclusionofa clearcuttreatment,
thc undcrlyinganalyticalapproach(ANOVA vs.
regression),and the nature and extent of postharvestsilviculturaltreatmgnts(e.g..weed control. thinning.orother commonstandmanagement
strategies).Operationally.design and implementationhavebeenchallengedby relativelyhigh
levels of variation in pre-treatmentconditions
within studyblocks and largediff'erencesin stand
structureand environmentamongblocks (Aubry
et al. 1999,Halpernet al. 1999);difficultiesin
meetingall of therequirements
of NEPA; andother
logistical problemsthat in many casesreflect the
dift'crencesin culture between researchand resourcemanagemententities.We haveleamedthat
pr,'ce's
r c l e l r l Sd e s i g r t cpdl r n n i n gr n J d e c i . i , r n
that identifies and addressespotential conflicts
canbe usedto efiiciently work throughthesetypes
of problems.
4. Commitment of lead researchers to the
coordination and planning required for success.
One of the more difficult problemswith DEMO
hasbccn that key participantshavebeeninvolved
in many activities in addition to DEMO. While
most have attendedto their disciplinary responsibilities effectively, some have been unable or
unwilling to invest the necessarytime and eftbrt
l u e n \ u r e( l c a r i n l c r d r ri.p l i n l r l c o r n m u n i c a l i r r n .
On the pafiicipant side, involved scientistsand
managersmust make aclequate
commitmentsof
time, especiallyto coordinationand communlcationprocesses.
On theagencyor contractorside,
thereneedsto be a conrmitunent
of adequatemultiycarresources.
In addition,oneor moreprogram
coordinatorsneed to be committed exclusively
to managementof the proiect.
5. Ef.fective collaboration between reseerch
and managementand among scientists. Effective collaborationrequiresa high level of understandingby researchers
of the constraintsof man
agemsntand v ice versa(seeAbbottet al. I 999).
However, basic vocabularyand operating styles
Franklin. Noris, Berg, and Smith
differ between researchand managcment,and
betweenftderal and academicinstitutions. Early
planningeftbrtswhere significanttime is devotcd
to institutionalandculturalorientationbefbreany
substantive
researchplmning beginswill pay dividends.For instance.
shoft-termgxchanges
ofre
searchand managementpersonnelmight be possible,or collaborationnight be encouraged
during
short, intensiveresearchscssionsor workshops.
Recently. the DEMO Coordinating Group has
found bi-weekly conferencecalls and periodic
groupmeetingsuselulto resolveissuesofexperim e n t r ld e s i g nl n d t r e a t r r e ni rl n p l e m e n l u l i ,u. r' n .
well as to lacilitate interactionsand share philosophiesandoperational
styles.Evenwith substantialeffortsat mutual understandingand colnmunication,it is clearthatthe goalsandconsfaints
of managersand scientistsare going to be difterent and thatmany decisionswill represent
com
promlses.
6. A communication progrsm. Given the
magnitudeof the investmentand the impo{ancc
of the issuesinherentin large-scale
interdiscipli
nary studies,it is essentialthat there are mechanisms to sharebasic intbrmation u'ith different
constituencies,including Congress,resource
manage$.and the public. The importanceof
o u l r e a c hi n o b t a i n i n gi n i t i a lc : w e l l : r \ c . ' n r i n u ing supportfor the proiect cannotbe overemphasized. Possiblemedia include: inlbrmation brochures,annual (or at least periodic) reporting
procedureswith publications, symposia,workshops,andspecialpresentations
1brmanagersand
decision makers. Such effons must be strongly
supportedby agencyadministratorsat local. rcgional, and national levels,however.
Thc problemsposedh; large-rcrleer,perimen
tation underscorethe needlbr a strongstatistical
designand for trcatmentsthat o1Iermajor.rather
than subtle,contrasts. Researchersand manageISmust recognizethc advantagesand disadvan
tages of heterogeneousve$us smaller,homogenoustreatmentarcas. Tmditional plant science
and silvicultureemphasizesmall hornogenous
plots. While this approachis valuable in many
respects.it is inadcquatefi)r the study of large
(e.g.,responses
scaleecosystem
responses
of widcmnglng vertebrates).
7, Sullicient supportfor data management.
Identificationof critical datamanagementnceds,
identificationof the institutionsand individuals
responsible1brdatananagement,quality control
andarchiving,andallocationoffinancial rcsources
l ( r a . h i c ! c a d c q u l t ed r t r n r a n a g e m ernrte c r i t i cal in large-scaleecosystcmresearch.The scale
of the task is rarely appreciatedand decisionsas
to the institutionswho will undcrtakethe respon
sibility are generally not an early consideration
in the designofsuch expedments.Furthermore.
participants(especiallyscientists.we think) are
traditionally loath to allocate large percentages
of a prograrnbudgct to the datamanagementactivity. preferring to spendas much as possiblein
research i.e.,ne* dataacquisition.In large-scale
proiectsof this type. our experienceis that about
20% of the project budgetneedsto be devotedto
the broad category of data management: documentation,metadatapreparation,quality control
(QA/QC), on-line data provision, long-term
archiving,andlacilitationof datasxchangeamong
scientists.
collaborating
De.pitethe,Jitficultie..large.caleerperimentation is necessaryto addresslarge-scaleproblems and challengesin managemcnt. There are
an increasingnumber of such enterprisesunderway. Examplesinclude: (1) the MethodsofAf
ternative Silvicultural Systems(MASS) projecl
Island(Arnoltet al. 1995);(2) ecoon Vancouver
studiesin theOuachitaMounsystenrmanagcment
tains,Arkansas(Baker 199.1):(3) the SilviculhrralSystemsProject(SSP)in theStateofVictoria,
Australia(Squire1992):and (,1)studieson the
BIackMountain ExperimcntalForest.Califoniaz.
lndeed.thereis sufficientinterestin suchprojects
in Canadathtrta network the ForestEcosystem
RescarchNetwork of Sites(FERNS)r-has been
establishedto lacilitate exchangeof infomration
amongrlri,ru' long-tenr.iI icttlrurrlcrperiments.
including organizationof a workshop in I 99lJon
"Long-Term
SilvicultumlResearchSites:Promoting the Concept Protectingthe Invcstmenl."
The MASS project is focusedon regeneration,
\ i l d l i t ' eh r b i t : l tr. n d a e s t h e t icco n c e r n i' n r n o n tane forestson the eastemside of VancouverIsland (Arnott et al. 1995). Thc cost and feasibil
i r ) , ' i u . i n g\ m a l lp a t c hc u t . .g r e e n - l r ere l e n t i , r n .
and shelterwood systemsarc being compared.
Harvestswereperformedin 1993.Eachapproach
has been replicatcd three times within a single
largeexperimental
area;a nearbyclearcutanduncut
old'gror,r
th blockpro\ ideudJilir,nrlcL'mprri.on\.
The importance of both sufficient funding and
comnittedscientists
who arewilling to collabo-
rate havebeen identified in reportsabout MASS
as key factorsin makingsuchpniects successful. MASS hashad substantialfinancial suppofi
fiem industry and governmentand has incorporatedscientistsand studentsfrom many different
includingsevertrlunivcrsitics.
organizations.
Severalsilviculturalexperimentsareunderway
in the centralregion of the United States.One of
the most comprehensiveofthese is a study of altemativeharvestcuttingpracticesin maturesho
fbrcsts on
Ieat p)ne (Pinu.sechinata)-hardw<>od
the Ouachitaand Ozark National Forests(Baker
1 9 9 4 r .T h i s s l u d ) i n \ o l v e . l . t h a r r e . l i n gt r e a l ments(l I panial-cuttingmethodsplusunmanaged
and clearcutcontrols)replicatedfour times,each
treatmentapplied to a l4- to l6-ha stand. Variablesunder study include microclimate,tree de
mography,plant communitycomposition.wildlife communities. a hropod and microbial
communities,
watersandsoils,loggingandmanagernenteconomics.and scenic quality. Initial
harvestingoccurredin 1993; thus, to date only
prelirninary rcsults have been published (Baker
199,1).Nevertheless,the interdisciplinarynaturc
ofthe researchteamis apparentasis abroadrangc
of pafiicipating oryanizations.
Two relatedlarge-scale
silvicultur l experiments
are underway in the Northern Sierra Nevadaof
California. At the GoosenestAdaptive Managenent Arca.anexperimentis directedtowardtesting
alternativetechniquesto acceleratethe development of late-successional
lbrest vegetationin tbrcsts which previouslyhad been sub.iectto inten
sive selectionharvesta. The harvest treatments
involve contrastingemphascson retentionofpine
or of large treesand, for the latter. an additional
comparisonwith and without use of prescribed
fire. The 20 treatmentareas(including fivc untreatedcontrols)are,10ha in size. A secondexperimentin nothem Califomiaat thenearbyBlack
Mountain ExperimentalForestis designedto test
techniques
to maintainandenhancethelate-successionalcharactelisticsof eastsidepine forests
that exhibit high levels of natural structuralvariability. The two harvest treatmentsinvolve re
tention ofhigh and low levelsof structuraldiversityi each treatmentis replicatedsix times with
eachI00-hareplicateturthersubdividedinto equal
arcaswith and without prescribedbuming treatments. True control areasare not a part of the
experimentaldesign.althoughsomeadjacentecological reservesprovide "qualitative" controls.
Histoq' of the DEMO Study
One of the earliest of the new generationof
silviculturalexperimentswas the Silvicultural
SystemsProiect (SSP) initiated in 1986 in the
AustralianStatcof Victoria (Squirc 1992). As
originally planned. the SSP and the associated
ValueAddedUtilizationSystem(VAUS)trial \\,ere
very ambitious in allowing the examination of
ecologicalandeconomicaltemativesacrossa brcad
rangeof lbrest types. lnplemcntation was much
m o r el i m i t e dw i t h e r p e r i m e n t ahla l r e . t i n !c o n fined to threetreatnentsreplicatedwithin a single
fbrest t)'pe. Funding constrilintswere the major
factorlimiting implementationandadcquatcstudy
of many important topical areas. The deficiencie. uere strrli.ienl lo lelld inJepenJent
re\ ie$ers of the project to question whcthcr ". . . the
VAUS Program can meet the . . . Govemment's
[informational]needs..." (Squire1992).Even
tually thc silviculturalexperimentwasabandoned
because
ofinsufficientfunding.despitea substantial
initial investnent.
slantialinvcstmcntsmay be lost. as in the AustralianSSPexample.
Experiments such these retlect the growing
interestin pr(iectsthat addresslarge-scale
interdisciplinaryissuesin forestecosystems;
theyalso
demonstratecommonapproaches
anddifficultics.
True statisticalreplicationis difflcult to obtain
and,when achieved.typically involvessignificant
tradeoffi in siteheterogeneityrvithin treatedplots
andamongreplicatesites.Liuge,multidisciplinaq'
teamswith membersliom a wide array of organ i z l l i o n . r r e t l p i c r l r r r d . u b \ t r n t i r lc o r n m u n i
cation among individuals must occur if projccts
areto succeed.Achievingadequate
anddependa b l c [ u n d i n gi s a r e r l s c r i o u .c h a l l e n g ien . u s taining such studies. Even rvhen they address
criticalinlbrmationneeds:indpolicv issues,
sub-
The authorswould like to acknowledgethe extensive assistanceof Kathy Kohm and Charles
Halpem in preparationandrevision ofthe manuscript. We would also like to thank severalre
viewersfor their many useful comments:Charles
Philpot,Keith Aubry, Bob Devlin, and Charles
P e t e r . o nT. h i sr r a p r r ) d u c' \l l t h c D e m u n . l r a t i o n
of EcosystemManagementOptions (DEMO)
study.a joint effert of the USDA ForestService
Region 6 and Pacific Northwest ResearchStation. Researchpartnersinclude the University of
Washington,OregonStateUniversity,University
ofOregon, GifTordPinchotandUmpquaNational
Forests.and theWashingtonStateDepartmentof
Natural Resources.
LiteratureCited
Aubry. K. B., M. P Amaranthus.C. B. Halpern, J. D. White.
B. l-. \\bodard. C. E. Pclcr\on. C. A. L.rgoudakis.and
A. J. Holton. 1999. E aluatingthe effecls ol laryil1g
l e \ i l . d n J p " r r e r n , . f - e e r - , r e er i r i n r o r : e r l e r l
nental design of the DEI\,IO study. Northw Sci. 73
( S p e c .I s s . ) : 1 2 - 2 6 .
Baker, J.B. (conp.). 199'1. Proceednrgsofthe symporiunr
on ccoslslcn mlnugement researchin ihe ouachita
Mountainsr prctrcalmcnlcondirions,tndpreliminary
f i n d i n g s .U S D A F o r S e r \ ' .C
, e n .T e c h .R c p .S O 1 1 2 .
flNIAT. 1993. Forestecosysten managemenr:an ecologi
cal. cconomic, and social rssessment. Repofi of the
Forest Ecosyslem \{anagcmcnt Assessmert Team.
USDA I'-or.Ser!.: USDC Nal. Occan.AmLrs.Admin.
and Nat. Nlar Firh. Sen'.: USDI Bur. Land M.rnrge..
Fjsh Wildl. Ser\'..and Nat. Park Scr!.: and US EPA.
$rashington,D.C.
A b b o r ! ,R . S . . J . D . w h i l c . a n d B . I - . W o o d a r d . 1 9 9 9 . T h c
bcncfirs and challcngcs ol largc scalc sil\icultural
erperimenls:peNpectiveslioln fbrestnanagerson the
Dennrn\tr'.rtionof Eco\)stem Manrgement Options
(DEMO) studf. \orth\\'. Sci. 7-l (Spec.1ss.):I I 8 125.
Anonyrnous. 1996. De olstrarion of Eco\yslcnr Managc
ment Optiolrsi a \tud) of grccn trcc rcrcnlion lclcls
and pa(crn\ in scrrcrn f)rcgon and Washingron.
Llnpubl. stud! plan. tiSDA Forc\t Scr\.. Pacilic
North$. Res. Sta.. Olympiil. Washinglon.
Arnott. J. T.. W. J. Bccsc. A. K. Mitchcll. and J. Pclcrs|)ll.
1 9 9 5 . l v l m r a r e A l r e r n a t i v eS i l ! i c u l t u r a l S y \ t e I n \
lNIASS). Crnada-BritishColumbi.rPrft ne|shipAgrcem e n t o n F o f e s tR e i o u r c eD e v e l o p m e n t iF R D A 1 1 .
F R D A R e p o r tN ( l . 2 - r l i .
l0
Franklin.Norris.Berg.rnd Smith
Conclusion
DEMO wasborn becauseofthe needto evaluate
the scientific basisfor some of the newer strategies tbr lbrest managementin the Pacific Nofthwest.especiallyon federallands.It hasbrought
resealchersand managerstogetherin an effbft of
propoftion.ThroughDEMO. both
unprecedented
lhe re:earchrnd themanagement
communityare
gainin-q
cxpcriencewith new approaches
to silviculture and resourcemanagement.Equally important,DEMO is paving the way to more effectivc collaboration between research and
management.This collaborationlies at the hear
of adaptivemanagemcnt,and is essentialto the
successot ecosystemmanagement.
Acknowledgements
F r a n k l i n J, . F . 1 9 9 2 .S c i e n l i f i cb a s i st o r n c $ p c r s p c c t i \ e isn
iirrcst and strcams. 1" R.J. Nainan (ed.). Wirtef\hed
Nfunagemert:Balancing Sustamabilil\'and tsnviron
mentrl Change. Spdnger-Verlag.Ne$ York.
Franklin, J. F.. and R. T. I Forman. 1987. Crcatirg land
scrpe pattems b] ibrest cutting: ecobgrcal consequencesand principles. LandscapcEcol. l:5 18.
Franklll1,J.f.. P M. Frenzen.and F. J. Swanson. 1995. Re
creationoiecosystc s atMount St. Helcns: contrasts
in alliliciul ard natural approaches.1n J. Caifns. Jr.
(ed.). RehabilirarinsDamagedEcosvslems. Second
e d i t i o n .L e $ i s P u b l i s h e r !B, o c aR a l o n . P p . 2 8 7 3 3 3 .
I - - r a n k l i nJ,. F . . D . R . B c r g . D . A . T h o r n b u r g h .a n d J . C .
Tappeiner.1997. Alternativesih icultuml approaches
to timber harvestingi lariablc rclcntron harvesl sls
t e n s . n K . A . K o h n , a n dJ . F . F r a n k l i n( e d s . ) .C r e
ating a l_brestr!tbr thc ll 'Ccntur): The Scienceof
Eco\ystem N,lanagement.Island Pre\s. $hshington.
D . C . P p .1 1 11 3 9 .
H a l p e r . .C . B . . S . A . E ! a n s .C . R . N c l s o n .D . t r l c K e n z i eD
. .
L i s u o i . D . E . H i b b s .a n d \ 1 . G . H a l { . 1 9 9 9 . R e sponseoffofest vegetationto \.'arring le\els and pa(
terns of grccn lrcc rclcilion: an overvie[ of a l(nrgt e n n e x p e if m e n t . N o r t h l v .S c i . 7 3 ( S p e c .I s r . ) : 2 7: 11 .
llammond. H. 1991. Sceing lhe Forest Among the Trees:
The Crse fi)r Wholi\tic Fofest Use. Pole!tar.
Vancouler. B.C.
Isaac.LA. 1941. Reproducti\ehabitsofDouglas-fir. Ch les
Lathrop Pack Fofestr) Foundrtion, $'ashington. D.C.
Jones,J. A., and G. E. Granl l996. Peakllo\\' respon\cslo
clcar cutdng androadsir smr l aDdlargebasins.\\'estefn Casc.Ldes.
Oregon. $iter ltesour. Res. 31i959
9 /1.
K o h n , K . A . , a n d J . f ' . F r a n k l i n( e d s . ) . 1 9 9 7 . C r e a t i D gl
Forestr\,for thc 2l'' Ccntury: The Science of Eco
sy\!cr. Management.Island Press.$'ashington, D.C.
Olympic Natural ResourcesCenrer. 1992. Measuringaher
native haA'esrcuuing s,vstcms.Ollnpic Ntrtufal Resourcc\ ClcnlcrUpdate 1(2): l. :1.5.
Squire.R. O. (ed.). 1992. First intcrim rcport ibr the \'.rlue
a d d c d u t i l i s r t i o ns y s t e mt r i a l 1 9 8 9 - 1 9 9 1 .V i c l o r i a
DeprItmeni of Conserration,tnd lnvironment.
\{elboulnc. Aunralia.
Tappcincr.J. C.. D. Lavendef.J. \\'alstad, lt. O. Curtis. and
D . S . D e B e l l . 1 9 9 7 .S i l v i c u l t u r asl y s l c m sa r d r c g e n ,
eraiion methods: currcnl practicesrnd ne$ altefnalivcs. 1,rK. A. Kohn. and J F Ffanklin (eds.). Crc
a t i n ga F o r e s t r tf o r t h e 2 l ' ' C e n t u r ] : T h e S c i e n c eo f
Ecos)stem llan.tgelnent. Island Pfess.Washington.
D.C. Pp. l5l 16,1.
T h o m a s J. . \ \ ' . . E . D . F L r s m a DJ,. B . L i n t . E . C . N { e s l o q B
. .
R . \ , \ ' n . i , r J J . V e f r e - . I n n , ) .\ c o r ) ( r \ - u l ' n r u - l
egy lof ihe northernspottcdolvli lnteragencyScientitic Conrmillcc to Address the CoDservationof the
Northern Spotled Oul. LISDA For. Ser!. and USDI
Bur. Land Nianage..Fisl Wildl. S.r!.. and Nat. Prrk
Ser\'.,Portland.OR. '127p.
Tuchmann.E. ll, K. P Connaughton.L. E. Frcedman.llnd C.
B. Moriwaki. 1996. The NoIhlve\I Forest Plan. A
repofi ro the Presidentand Congrc\s. USDA Off. For.
E c o n .A s s t . .P o n l a n d O
. R. 253p.
U . S . l l o u s c o l R . p r e s e n t a t i \ e s1. 9 9 2 . D e p a f i m e not f I n t e
rior and relateclagenciesappropriatlonsbill. 1991.
Houle of Reprcscntali!cs.102ndColrgress.lnd Se\s i o nR e p o r t1 0 2 - 6 1 6 .1 5 5I .
Endnotes
r N 1 c n ol i o m J o h n C . r i h o u n .R e g i o n a lM a n r g e f . O l t m p i c
Region.\\ DNR to I-arr'' \'{a\on. Ercculi\c Dircclor. \\'ash
ington ComnrefcialForestAction (lommi!!cc. datcdJunc 12.
1992.
'For mofe inlbrmarion on FERNS. conurctJim Wood. CrLnadian ForestService.Pacific Fore\irv Cenire,Victoria. Brilish
Colunbia. 205/163 0600. \Veh sile: http://w\\'r.pfc.
cls.nrcan.gc.ca/pnclices/lern.htln.
rFor more information on dre Black \{ourlain Fl)ipcri rcntal
Fofest.contactthe Pacific Southxest Re\eafch Statior, 2:100
washington A!e.. Redding. CA 96001, 916/1,16-5-155.
F . r r n u r . . r l ' , n r - tu r u n r h i C , 1 . e r i r e \ f i f r m e r. . . 0 1 , J .I
Kath,v Harckcn. Pacilic Soulhwest Resexrch Station. 2.100
\\'ashingtonA\'e.. Redding CA 96001. 916/2,165.155.
History of the DEMO Study