United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Southwest

Research Station

General Techncial Report

PSW-GTR-179

Ecological Research at the Blacks Mountain

Experimental Forest in Northeastern

California

William W. Oliver
Publisher

Albany, California

Mailing address:

PO Box 245, Berkeley CA

94701-0245

(510) 559-6300

http://www.psw.fs.fed.us

August 2000

Pacific Southwest Research Station

Forest Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Abstract

Oliver, William W. 2000. Ecological research at the Blacks Mountain

Experimental Forest in northeastern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR179. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture; 66 p.

At Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest in northeastern California, an

interdisciplinary team of scientists developed and implemented a research project

to study how forest structural complexity affects the health and vigor of interior

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws.) ecosystems, the ecosystem’s

resilience to natural and human-caused disturbances, and how such ecosystems

can be managed for sustained resource values. A randomized, split-plot, factorial

design has been developed to test the influences of structural diversity, cattle

grazing, and prescribed fire on twelve 250-acre study units. A permanently

monumented data reference system on a 100-meter (328-ft) grid will facilitate

spatial and temporal analysis as well as integration of information at various

scales. Intensive preliminary sampling has established baseline data on small

mammal and avian diversity and behavior, forest vegetation structures and

floristic diversity, historical fire patterns, bark beetle dynamics, soil properties

and processes, and genetic structure of pines and understory species.

Retrieval Terms: ponderosa pine, white fir, stand development, stand structure,

succession, prescribed fire, thinning, cattle grazing, small mammals, passerine

birds, bark beetles, arthropods.

The Author

William W. Oliver is Research Silviculturist with the Station’s Western Forest

Management Research Unit, 2400 Washington Avenue, Redding, CA 96001.

e-mail: boliver@fs.fed.us.

Acknowledgments

Cooperators in this research include the USDA Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest

Region Genetics Unit and Lassen National Forest, Michigan Technological

University, Oregon State University, Humboldt State University, University of

California, Davis and Berkeley, and the Wildlife Conservation Society.
Pacific Southwest

Research Station

USDA Forest Service

General Technical

Report

PSW-GTR-179

August 2000

Contents

In Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Interdisciplinary Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Interdisciplinary Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Ecological Research Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Implementing the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Predicted Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Activities of the Component Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Fire Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Standing Biomass and Nutrient Content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Plant Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Soil Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Forest Genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Forest Entomology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Wildlife Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Grazing Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

How to Get Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Appendices

A. Treatment Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

B. Memorandum of Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

C. Tree Harvesting Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

D. Plant and Animal Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Ecological Research at the Blacks Mountain

Experimental Forest in Northeastern

California

William W. Oliver
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

In Brief . . .

Oliver, William W. 2000. Ecological research at the Blacks Mountain

Experimental Forest in northeastern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR179. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture; 66 p.

Retrieval Terms: ponderosa pine, white fir, stand development, stand structure,

succession, prescribed fire, thinning, cattle grazing, small mammals, passerine

birds, bark beetles, arthropods.

This paper discusses an interdisciplinary large-scale, long-term ecological

research project initiated in 1991 at the Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest

(BMEF) in northeastern California. The research goals of the study were to

increase our understanding of the effects of forest structural complexity on the

health and vigor of interior ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws.)

ecosystems, quantify the ecosystem’s resilience to natural and human-caused

disturbances, and determine how these ecosystems can be managed for sustained

resource values.

Two forest structures were created with various combinations of ground

disturbances—with and without prescribed fire—on 12 units of about 250 acres

each: high structural diversity without grazing, high structural diversity with

grazing, low structural diversity without grazing, and low structural diversity

with grazing.

Each treatment was replicated three times in a randomized block design

with split plots. In each plot, prescribed fire was introduced into one half and

kept out of the other half. Although the design does not include untreated

controls, four Research Natural Areas (RNAs) well-distributed within the BMEF

were also studied to provide quantitative and qualitative information on

undisturbed systems.

All data were referenced to a 100-meter grid, surveyed, and permanently

monumented in each treatment plot. This grid facilitated spatial and temporal

analyses, as well as integration of information at various scales.

The years between the conception of a study this size and its implementation

allowed for collection of baseline data. We gathered data on the pre-treatment

vegetation and forest floor conditions, small mammals and birds, and tested

various methods of re-introducing fire without killing the large old trees we

wished to retain in the high structural diversity plots. The results of our study

showed that we don’t have a definitive answer about the best time of year to

conduct the initial burns. The only mortality observed was in early spring and

late fall.

We also wanted information on rates of nitrogen fixation and mineralization

and their degree of seasonal and spatial variability. For instance, we found that

nitrogen processes within and beneath large, downed woody debris are no

greater than beneath other types of ground cover. In fact, the areal importance of

downed woody debris as a nitrogen source is less in proportion to its areal cover

than other cover types.

The pre-treatment inventory illustrated the well-recognized ability of Jeffrey

pine (Pinus jeffreyi) to tolerate harsher sites compared to ponderosa pine. Thus,

Jeffrey pine was found almost exclusively on the floor of the valley where

tolerance of late spring frosts favored Jeffrey pine and on the rocky and shallow

soils at upper elevations. Baseline genetic diversity was determined for

ponderosa pine, antelope bitterbrush, and Idaho fescue. These baseline data are

the genetic control level of reference that will be used to evaluate the impact of

management options on genetic diversity of these systems over time.

ii
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Soil arthropods were sampled on tree-centered transects in units with

completed treatments. Preliminary results suggest that low intensity prescribed

fire has little effect on species richness, diversity, and evenness of oribatid mites,

but moderate intensity prescribed fire has a more profound effect on the measures

of community structure.

As an example of the interdisciplinary opportunities offered by the main

study, ornithologists are studying bird use of snags that were created by bark

beetles or mechanically girdling. Initially at least, they have found that

woodpecker use of bark beetle-killed trees is much greater than for mechanicallykilled trees.

BMEF has some of the greatest snag densities to be found anywhere in

northeastern California. As a result, it has one of the most abundant and diverse

assemblages of sapsuckers and woodpeckers in California.

The interdisciplinary study on the Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest is

designed to restore late seral stands to conditions perceived as common before

differential cutting of pine and fire exclusion in the eastside pine type. We are

attempting within a few years to reverse processes that took decades to develop.

Regardless of our success in sustaining uneven-aged ponderosa pine stands, our

interdisciplinary study should provide insights into how eastside pine

ecosystems have been altered by the loss of late seral structures.

iii
Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper

The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is responsible for Federal Leadership

in forestry. It carries out this role through four main activities:

•Protection and management of resources on 191 million acres of National Forest

System lands;

•Cooperation with State and local governments, forest industries, and private landowners to help protect and manage non-Federal forest and associated range and

watershed lands;

•Participation with other agencies in human resource and community assistance

programs to improve living conditions in rural areas; and

•Research on all aspects of forestry, rangeland management, and forest resources

utilization.

The Pacific Southwest Research Station

• Represents the research branch of the Forest Service in California, Hawaii, American

Samoa, and the western Pacific.

The United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,

national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation,

and marital or familial status. (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

Room 326-W

Whitten Building

14th & Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20250-9410

or call:

(202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD)

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and

employer.
PSW-GTR-179

General Technical Report

Research Station

Pacific Southwest

Forest Service

of Agriculture

Department

United States

Experimental F

Ecological Research at the Blacks Mountain

orest in Northeastern California
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 1

Introduction

Forest managers are challenged to manage forests for a variety of uses. They

must know about the resiliency of ecosystems to the impacts of natural and

human-caused disturbances and be able to maintain or re-establish critical

ecosystem functions. A forest is a highly complex system of interacting and

independent-living and non-living components. Understanding complex

ecosystem interactions, at both stand and landscape scales, is essential and can

be accomplished only through experimentation and collaboration among

scientists.

Results of large-scale field experiments can be very important and relevant

in guiding environmental policy. In fact, great progress can be made in ecosystem

management when straightforward experiments are performed by relatively

small interdisciplinary teams cognizant of the relevant management and

scientific issues (Carpenter and others 1995). Such experiments, however, must

be at scales that mimic operational management, are sited on dedicated lands,

and are provided sustained funding. Such experimental sites, although rare, are

essential to conduct selected ecosystem manipulations, provide long-term data

for evaluating environmental change and management actions, and develop the

indicators and basic understanding necessary to manage ecosystems.

In 1990, the National Research Council (1990) published Forestry Research—A

Mandate for Change. One of the recommendations to achieve this change was to

“Establish research-management collaborations at large spatial scales with an

environmental perspective. This would require multidisciplinary activities on

large tracts of land” (p. 53). This recommendation has been minimally

accomplished, and usually only where large sums of money have attracted

scientists.

The USDA Forest Service’s Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW)

extended this challenge by undertaking a large interdisciplinary study. In contrast

to multidisciplinary research in which scientists work independently in the same

location and later share results, interdisciplinary research requires a cohesive

team of scientists from several disciplines involved at the beginning of the same

study. Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest (BMEF) was chosen as the study

site. This 10,300-acre forest of interior ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex

Laws.), established in 1934, is 40 road miles northwest of Susanville, Lassen

County, California (fig. 1). The research approach at the BMEF was to create, by

operational scale manipulations, two distinct forest structures: late seral stage

Figure 1—The Blacks Mountain

Experimental Forest (BMEF) is 40

road miles from Susanville in

northeastern California.
2 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

(high structural diversity) and mid-seral stage (low structural diversity). The

initial vegetational structures were created by prescribed timber harvesting.

Additional vegetation manipulations are being accomplished by cattle grazing

and prescribed fire. Over time, the response of various ecosystem components

and processes, such as soil quality, nutrient cycling, soil micro-arthropods, decay

of coarse woody debris, vegetation, insects, and wildlife to these vegetational

structures will be measured. This unique research environment will foster a

continuous interchange of ideas, data sets, and management strategies among

the science team members.

This paper discusses the interdisciplinary large-scale, long-term ecological

research project initiated in 1991 at BMEF in northeastern California to increase

our understanding of the effects of forest structural complexity on the health and

vigor of interior ponderosa pine ecosystems, quantify the ecosystem’s resilience

to natural and human-caused disturbances, and determine how these ecosystems

can be managed for sustained resource values.

Interdisciplinary Research

The seed for interdisciplinary research was planted in 1985 when Station

managers encouraged research units to communicate more widely and explore

opportunities for cooperative research. There were barriers, however. Traditional

research units studied single disciplines and were geographically separated.

Cross-discipline research was rare. Throughout the Station, scientists were fully

engaged in studies they considered high priority, and they were reluctant to take

on anything new. Management’s approach could not dissolve these barriers

because scientists who would actually do the research were not involved in the

discussions and because no specific project was identified. Cross-discipline

research for its own sake was deemed pointless. But the idea persisted.

Recognizing that vegetation management was the basis for ecosystem

management and that silviculture is the most integrative of all natural resource

disciplines, research silviculturists took the lead in pressing the issue.

By 1990, the political and social climates were ripe for new initiatives. The

Forest Service was pressured by environmentalists to de-emphasize short

rotation, even-aged management and to save all remaining late seral forests. In

response to these pressures, the Washington Office offered funding for research

on late seral forests. Silviculturists applied for these funds to conduct a 50-year

remeasurement of old study plots on the BMEF. This remeasurement was

performed during the 1990 and 1991 field seasons and the results were published

(Dolph and others 1995). At this time, the agency began a fledgling program

called “New Perspectives” (Robertson 1992) in National Forest management that

favored other forest values over traditional commodity production. New

Perspectives was a well-meaning initiative that encouraged innovation on the

ground, but it was seen as a rather nebulous program that needed stronger roots

in science.

New Perspectives was the springboard for launching a program of

interdisciplinary research. A coordinator who would embrace interdisciplinary

research and not favor a particular discipline was thought to be essential to ease

the formation and smooth the operation of an interdisciplinary team. The

program was in critical need of a coordinator with the knowledge and ability to

communicate with the National Forests on the nuts and bolts of the National

Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) process, timber sale contract

development, grazing permit administration, and a myriad of other details

involved in the large-scale manipulation of vegetation. Few scientists are familiar

with these procedures that would compete for time and for which a scientist

would receive little credit. Consequently, in August 1990, a forester, Kathy

Harcksen, from the National Forest System was hired to coordinate and facilitate

our research.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 3

Later that same month, silviculturists attempted to gain support for an

interdisciplinary study at the BMEF by conducting a field meeting on the Forest

(fig. 2). Discussions centered on landscape-scale investigations. Nothing

substantive evolved from that field meeting except a recognition that more

discussion was necessary to formulate a viable plan. Therefore, a follow-up

meeting was held in October 1990 at the University of California, Berkeley,

Blodgett Forest Research Station, near Georgetown, California. All Station

scientists interested in interdisciplinary research and/or long-term ecological

research were invited. Much discussion centered on the need and feasibility of

establishing a network of long-term ecological research sites (LTERs) in

California. Ideally, sites should be located in the major forest types in

northwestern California, northeastern California, and the westside Sierra

Nevada. BMEF could represent the interior ponderosa pine type in northeastern

California, and Blodgett Forest could represent the Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer

type of the westside Sierra Nevada. No existing installation was available for the

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirb.] Franco var. menziesii) type of

northwestern California. Participants were painfully aware that neither a major

funding increase nor a reorganization of the Station, both necessary to make this

system of LTERs a reality, was likely.

Although a system of LTERs in major forest types in California would

remain a dream, the meeting participants believed an interdisciplinary study at

the BMEF could be initiated if a sufficient number of Station scientists were

interested in participating and contributing their time to the project. A letter

calling for participation was given wide circulation in January 1991. Scientists

responded positively from a sufficient number of disciplines to allow for an

interdisciplinary team formation meeting held in Susanville, California, in April

1991. After three days of discussion and compromise, a general experimental

design and treatment description emerged.

Figure 2—Several field meetings

were necessary to craft a plan for

a large-scale interdisciplinary

study.
4 USDA Forest Service Gen.Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Interdisciplinary Team

The most important factor contributing to the development and continued

success of this science team is that scientists participated voluntarily. Although

Station administrators encouraged cooperative research among disciplines,

specific individuals were not targeted and a research topic was not suggested.

Except for empowerment by Station administrators, the project benefits from a

bottom-up approach with all participants having an equal ownership. The

participants were mature scientists who recognized the value of large-scale

ecosystem management research. They were the few who were willing to endure

the delay in reportable results common in such projects. They were also aware of

the difficulties of working with different natural resource disciplines but were

willing to compromise to ensure success of the overall plan. Wildlife biologists

were especially enthusiastic because they recognized that the field design and

size of the treatment units could provide for statistical interpretation of cause

and effect research—a unique opportunity.

The original science team was drawn mostly from the PSW and has remained

largely intact (table 1). The disciplines represented are silviculture, ecology, soil

science, entomology, wildlife biology, geography, statistics, mensuration,

genetics, and range science.

The April 1991 meeting was important for several reasons. First, the

individuals learned they had to compromise if they were to accomplish anything

and if they were to maintain the trust of the other individuals. Second, the

individuals had to define how decisions were to be made. Most importantly, the

individuals realized a sense of elation in knowing they had indeed developed the

framework for a true interdisciplinary research project.

Because the consensus decision-making process worked and because trust

was built between the members during this process, consensus was the decisionmaking model of choice for this team. When consensus could not be reached, the

team resorted to the informed-consent decision model. This decision-making

model was used when the vast majority reached consensus but at least one

member did not agree. The dissenting member then consented to the decision,

although he or she disagreed with it. This model was effective because the

members strongly believed in the team approach to research and realized that

sometimes they had to compromise to ensure its health and success.

Table 1—Participants who attended the April 1991 planning meeting and current participants in the Blacks

Mountain Ecological Research Project.

Participant Research discipline Affiliation Attended Current

planning participant

meeting

Leroy Dolph Silviculturist PSW, Redding Yes No

George Ferrell Entomologist PSW, Redding Yes No

Luke George Wildlife Ecologist Humboldt State

University, Arcata No Yes

Jim Laacke Silviculturist PSW, Redding Yes No

Bill Laudenslayer Wildlife Ecologist PSW, Fresno Yes Yes

Sylvia Mori Statistician PSW, Albany Yes Yes

Bill Oliver Silviculturist PSW, Redding Yes Yes

Bob Powers Silviculturist PSW, Redding Yes No

Nancy Rappaport Entomologist PSW, Albany No Yes

Ray Ratliff Range Scientist PSW, Fresno Yes No

Martin Ritchie Biometrician PSW, Redding No Yes

Pat Shea Entomologist PSW, Davis Yes Yes

Carl Skinner Geographer PSW, Redding Yes Yes

Phil Weatherspoon Silviculturist PSW, Redding Yes Yes

Steve Zack Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Conservation

Society, Humboldt State

University, Arcata Yes Yes

Kathy Harcksen Forester/Team Leader PSW, Redding Yes No
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

5

An area of compromise arose when the geographic scale of the research had

to be decided. Because different forest attributes respond to treatments at

different scales (i.e., woodpeckers versus grasses), different scales were necessary

for each of the disciplines. It was immediately apparent that the attribute with

the need for the largest geographic scale would dominate the scale of the

ecological research project. The minimum size for small mammals and passerine

birds was 100 acres. In contrast, the response of vegetation to tree harvest and

prescribed fire could be studied successfully on much smaller units.

Although the core team of scientists has been relatively constant from 1991

through 1999, several members have left (table 1). Since then the team has

broadened to include a geneticist with the Forest Service and scientists at the

University of California at Davis, Humboldt State University, and the Wildlife

Conservation Society. Cooperators include the Lassen National Forest and

scientists from Oregon State University, Michigan Technological University, the

University of California at Berkeley, the University of Idaho and the Rocky

Mountain Research Station.

Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest

The Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest provides an ideal site for the

ecological research project because of the existing forest conditions, opportunities

to manipulate and maintain long-term research sites, the extensive and welldesigned road and compartment system, and the extensive historical databases.

The BMEF was formally designated in 1934 as the Station’s principal site for

management investigations in the interior ponderosa pine type. Studies going

back to 1910 at Blacks Mountain had resulted in new theories of management,

silviculture, and insect control. A primary objective of the BMEF in 1934 was to

develop these theories into a system of management and to test, demonstrate,

and improve the system through continuous operation of a timber tract on a

commercial scale.

In 1933 and 1934 before full-scale operations began, the BMEF was

subdivided into 100 compartments of about 100 acres each. An intensive road

system—the first in the west specifically designed for hauling logs by truck

rather than by rail—was laid out such that every compartment was bordered by

a road. Also, the BMEF was completely inventoried on a 2.5-acre grid for trees

11.6 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) and larger. Vegetation type maps

and inventories were prepared by compartments.

Early timber harvests were primarily designed to test different silvicultural

approaches to control insects. Salmon and Bongberg’s (1942) insect risk-rating

system was developed and tested at BMEF. When it was demonstrated that the

average cut of 2,500 board feet per acre could be logged economically and that

the cutting reduced the annual rate of tree killing, sanitation-salvage was adopted

widely. Dunning conceived the idea of making the mosaic of small even-aged

groups of trees (the prevailing stand structure at BMEF), rather than individual

trees, the subjects of management (Hallin 1959). This concept of Unit Area

Control (Hallin 1959) was tested operationally during the 1950’s. Cuttings in the

1970’s and early 1980’s were designed to convert large areas of the BMEF to

young-growth stands, which were thought to be needed for future research.

An ambitious study of stand growth and development after several

intensities of timber harvesting was begun in 1938 (Hasel 1938). Each year for 10

years, four to six 20-acre plots were installed to test various cutting prescriptions.

Treatments in this Methods-of-Cutting Study ranged from complete removal of

all trees 11.6 inches in dbh and larger (the minimum size for sawlogs at that time)

through several degrees of partial harvest to no harvest (fig. 3). Before,

immediately, and 5 years after harvest all trees were inventoried and the location

of all trees 11.6 inches dbh and larger within the experimental plots were mapped.

Inventories were repeated at various intervals and intensities during the next 45
6 USDA Forest Service Gen.Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

years. Although timber has been harvested in other compartments periodically,

those compartments that contained the Methods-of-Cutting Study plots were not

entered again except for felling of snags in the early 1950’s. As a result, 10 groups

of 2 or 3 compartments were present, well-scattered throughout the BMEF. Each

group, comprising 200 to 300 acres, had been subjected to various degrees of

partial harvesting in the Methods-of-Cutting plots, but the majority of the acreage

in each group contained large old trees.

Wildlife biologists were also active at BMEF. In a 1-year study, McKeever

(1961) of the University of California, Davis, conducted small mammal studies

by using the line transect/3-snap-traps/station method at several sites in

northeastern California, including BMEF. The purpose of his work was to gain a

better understanding of small mammal impacts on reforestation. Several

publications on small mammal ecology emerged from this work, including a

report on the relative abundance (based on percent of trap success during months

when animals were active and captured) of small mammals associated with

differences in dominant tree species. Ten species of small mammals were

captured in the ponderosa pine dominated sites, including the site within the

BMEF. The seven most dominant species were (from most to least abundant)

yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias amoenus), golden-mantled ground squirrel

(Spermophilus lateralis), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), lodgepole

chipmunk (Tamias speciosus), Townsend’s chipmunk (Tamias townsendii), northern

flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus), and Douglas’ squirrel (Tamiasciurus

douglasii). Trowbridge’s shrew (Sorex trowbridgii), Nuttall’s cottontail (Sylvilagus

nuttallii), and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) were captured only sporadically.

Methods

Ecological Research Project

Remoteness, aridity, and low human population density describe interior

ponderosa pine forests. Because of this, forest management practices on these

forests tend to be less controversial than those practices on forests on the western

slopes of the Southern Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada near population centers.

However, like forest managers on western slopes, managers of interior forests

are confronted with a similar mix of problems. Historically, forests have been

managed for timber production with a net loss in structural diversity.

Figure 3—Infrastructure of the

Blacks Mountain Experimental

Forest showing the location of the

Methods-of-Cutting Study plots.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 7

Vegetation is the visually dominant component of a forest. Carbon captured

through photosynthesis forms the currency that pays for ecosystem processes.

Substantial differences in canopy architecture should produce fundamental

differences in carbon capture and the way it is apportioned into other ecosystem

components (understory, detritus, habitat, forage). In turn, this should result in

profound differences in the health, abundance, and variety of animals that

depend on organic matter for shelter and sustenance. Thus, the way that carbon

is captured, apportioned, and recycled was a starting point for the science team’s

hypotheses. The team began with a simple null hypothesis: strong differences in

canopy architecture should have no effect on emerging properties of ecosystems.

Experimental Design

Two forest structures were created (figs. 4, 5) with various combinations of

ground disturbances—with and without prescribed fire—on twelve units of

about 250 acres each:

• High structural diversity without grazing

• High structural diversity with grazing

• Low structural diversity without grazing

• Low structural diversity with grazing.

Key features of the forest structural treatments are (appendix A):

• High structural diversity:

- The presence of many large, old trees

- Abundant snags, especially those with large diameters

- Multiple canopy layers with dense clumps of smaller trees

- Many small canopy gaps and forest floor openings.

• Low structural diversity:

- Single layer, evenly spaced, continuous canopy

- Few snags

- Few large canopy gaps and forest floor openings.

Figure 4—Treatment

combinations in the Blacks

Mountain Ecological Research

Project on the Blacks Mountain

Experimental Forest.
8 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Figure 5—The Blacks Mountain

Ecological Research Project before

and after applying treatments, (A)

before and (B) after application of

the high structural diversity

treatment without prescribed fire,

and (C) and (D) with prescribed

fire; (E) before and (F) after

application of the low structural

diversity treatment without

prescribed fire, and (G) and (H)

with prescribed fire.

A

B
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 9

C

D
10 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

E

F
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 11

G

H
12 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

The structural diversity treatments should not be confused with the classic

silvicultural systems of even-aged and uneven-aged management. High

structural diversity differs from uneven-aged management in that the emphasis

is on maintaining the specific structural features of large old trees, snags, and

multiple canopy layers, not necessarily on maintaining three or more age classes

of trees. Low structural diversity is simply a contrasting structure. Regeneration

is neither provided for nor presently desired in either structure. The terms

carried no specific connotation, and they accurately described our treatment

objectives. A re-entry in 20 years is tentatively planned, at which time stand

structures will be evaluated and may be adjusted to ensure that they remain

consistent with the treatment specifications.

The entire forest is included in grazing allotments. Thus, 6 of the 12 units are

fenced to exclude grazing. In each unit prescribed fire is introduced to one half

and excluded from the other. The team anticipates that a series of three burns,

closely spaced, will be required to reduce the fuels to a level more easily

maintained.

Each treatment is replicated three times in a randomized block design with

split units for prescribed fire. Blocking was considered desirable because of

differences in vegetation associated with differences in elevation among units.

Interior Ponderosa Pine (Forest Cover Type 237) (Eyre 1980) is the only forest

cover type found on the BMEF. Species composition varies within the type,

however. White fir (Abies concolor [Gord. & Glend.] Lindl. ex Hildebr.) and

incense-cedar (Libocedrus decurrens Torr.), absent in stands at the lowest

elevations, become increasingly abundant at higher elevations. Because the

compartment groups are scattered throughout the BMEF, some contained nearly

pure pine stands at the lower elevations and others contained substantial

quantities of white fir at the higher elevations.

Because the study encompasses 3,100 acres, treating all units in one field

season was not feasible. Structural treatments were applied to one block in each

of 3 years—the summers of 1996, 1997, and 1998. Non-grazed units were fenced

in the summer and fire splits burned in the fall of the following year. Therefore,

the randomized block design allows for isolating responses attributable both to

differences in vegetational associations and in year of treatment in the block

effect.

The 10 compartment groups containing the Methods-of-Cutting Study

comprised the nucleus of the ecological research project. The design, however,

required 12 units. Two uncut compartments in the northeastern corner of the

BMEF formed one additional unit, and an area located on the Lassen National

Forest, 0.5 mile from the southeastern corner of the BMEF (fig. 6), formed the

final unit.

Figure 6—The Blacks Mountain

Ecological Research Project

treatments on the Blacks

Mountain Experimental Forest.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 13

Although the design does not include untreated controls per se, four Research

Natural Areas (RNAs), each about 100 acres in size and well-distributed within

BMEF, will be studied to provide quantitative and qualitative information on

untreated systems (fig. 7). The RNAs and the treatments without grazing will be

fenced to exclude cattle. Two of the RNAs will have prescribed fire.

The Method-of-Cutting plots are an important legacy, especially because of

the intensive measurements taken periodically for more than 50 years and the

stem maps of the sawtimber-sized trees. A 10-acre portion of the control and

heavy Forest Service cutting treatments were reserved from cutting in the high

structural diversity units—units 38, 41, 42, and 47. These treatments were the

extremes in the spectrum of treatments installed every year.

If all possible interactions are of interest, overall treatment responses can be

analyzed by the following analysis of variance:

Source Degrees of freedom

Block 2

Structure 1

Grazing 1

Structure x Grazing 1

Error (a) 6

Fire 1

Fire x Structure 1

Fire x Grazing 1

Fire x Grazing x Structure 1

Error (b) 8

___________________________________

Total 23

Figure 7—Research Natural Area

C on the Blacks Mountain

Experimental Forest before reintroduction of fire.
14 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

If it is determined a priori that the interaction of fire and grazing or fire and

structure is not of interest, then the following analysis of variance could be

performed:

Source Degrees of freedom

Block 2

Structure 1

Structure x Grazing 1

Error (a) 7

Fire 1

Error (b) 11

___________________________________

Total 23

From the study’s inception, the science team directed substantial funds to

foster a truly interdisciplinary project. The team invested in the following spatial

databases:

• Ground control—Ground control was established through a

permanently monumented grid on 100-meter (328-ft) centers throughout

each unit (Del Terra, Inc. 1996, 1997, 1999). The monuments were located

by conventional survey methods and placed within 15 cm (0.6 ft) of their

predetermined Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates using

the High Precision Geodetic Network (HPGN) (fig. 8). The actual location

of each monument is known to within 6 inches. The survey was

controlled by a survey grade global positioning system (GPS).

Monuments are 18-inch rebar with an aluminum cap stamped with the

unit number and UTM coordinate. All measurements and other activities

will be referenced to this grid.

• High-resolution aerial photography—Digital orthophoto and digital

terrain models have been developed, both to 0.3-m (1 ft) resolution.

Previous research plots and tree locations have been geo-referenced to

the digital orthophoto, using the 100-m grid.

• Ecological Unit Inventory (EUI) (Alexander 1994)—An EUI is the

mapping of ecological units (USDA Forest Service 1991). The ecological

units are characterized by relatively homogeneous geology, landforms

(relief and drainage), soils, and potential vegetation. The EUI was

conducted in 1993 (fig. 9). Soils were described by using USDA

Figure 8—Ground control in

unit 43 was established through

a permanently monumented

grid on 100-meter centers.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 15

nomenclature and classified according to soil taxonomy. The BMEF is on

the edge of the Modoc Plateau, adjacent to the Cascade Range. Bedrock

is basalt. Most of the soils are between 3 and 6 feet deep. The

predominant deep soils over basalt are Typic Argixerolls with mesic soil

temperature regimes at lower elevations and Andic Argixerolls with

frigid soil temperature regimes at higher elevations.

• Old vegetation type maps—All compartments were typed for existing

vegetation in the 1930’s when the BMEF infrastructure was being

established (fig. 10). These maps are available for digitizing. They

provide valuable insights into vegetational changes in an undisturbed

interior ponderosa pine ecosystem over a 60-year period.

Three meteorological stations—one with data delivery via satellite—have

been installed at three locations at BMEF. The locations span the geographic and

elevational range of the study units.

A local vendor assisted in designing a corporate relational database, as well

as the spatial database (Vestra Resources, Inc. 1997). Baseline data with the field

seasons in which they were obtained are vegetation pre-treatment: 1993, 1994;

post-harvest: 1997 to present; small mammals and birds: 1991 to present; bark

beetle outbreaks: 1993, 1994, 1995; genetic diversity of key vegetative species:

1995, 1996; and Ecological Unit Inventory: 1993. All data are keyed temporally

and spatially to the monumented 100-m grid in all 12 units (Del Terra, Inc. 1996,

1997, 1999) and can be related to data from the digital orthophoto. These data

allow researchers to accurately describe current conditions across a broad range

of spatial scales, from the point to the forest level. This capability is a key feature

of the experiment, allowing changes in forest structure and species composition

in response to treatments to be monitored.

 Implementing the Research

The Lassen National Forest was crucial to our success and was an active

partner in implementing the project. This partnership was formalized by a

memorandum of understanding between the Pacific Southwest Research Station

and the Lassen National Forest signed on October 30, 1992 (appendix B). This

memorandum of understanding described the activities and responsibilities of

each party in implementing the research project, with target dates for completion.

The Forest took charge of the NEPA process and the sale of the timber. For

NEPA, they conducted archeological, and Threatened and Endangered Species

Figure 9—Map of the ecological

unit inventory (EUI) of the Blacks

Mountain Experimental Forest

showing ecological unit boundaries

(Alexander 1994).
16 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

surveys, prepared all documents, and participated with the science team in

public meetings and field trips. For the timber sale, they marked and cruised the

trees and prepared the contract. Both the Environmental Assessment (EA) and

the timber sale contract had features unusual for the Forest. Because the project

must be managed on the basis of scientific research, our team insisted that the

range of alternatives in the EA be limited to installing the treatments as described

or to abandoning the project altogether.

Compared with other regions of California, few controversies occur over

land use in this part of the state. Therefore, public response to the project was

best described as “wait and see”—but this was in sharp contrast to the bidders’

response to the timber sale. The oral auction conducted by the Lassen National

Forest in spring 1995 was protested by a bidder who, because of the volume of

timber to be removed (33 million board feet), wanted the project divided into

several smaller sales. Although the science team’s insistence on one purchaser

was eventually upheld, installation of treatments was delayed 1 year.

The large volume of timber to be harvested over a large area—3,100 acres—

necessitated a multiyear operation that began in 1996 (appendix C). Structural

treatments were applied to one block of four units in each of 3 years. Non-grazed

units were fenced in the summer and fire splits burned in the fall of the next year.

The timber sale contract had several unusual restrictions designed to reduce

variation resulting from the harvesting operations, such as a single purchaser,

specific target dates for completion of specific units, and low ground pressure

equipment. All this was facilitated by our choice of a professional forester to

oversee and coordinate such details. To ensure that all treatments were conducted

with care and with consistency, PSW provided a full-time sale administrator.

Variation caused by different logging equipment, methods, and care among

units with similar treatment designations can mask treatment responses. To

reduce this variation, the following restrictions and specifications were imposed

on the timber sale:

• Purchaser—The entire project was included in one offering. Although

the team recognized that subcontractors might change from year to year,

one purchaser would tend to minimize variation in logging practices.

Figure 10—The vegetation type

map prepared in the 1930’s of

compartment B24-7, a portion of

unit 43 of the Blacks Mountain

Ecological Research Project.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 17

• Completion targets—The project was too large to be completed in 1

year. Therefore, one entire block was to be logged in each of the 3

years—1996, 1997, and 1998. Any variation due to year logged, such as

weather and different subcontractors, could be isolated in the block

effect term in a statistical analysis.

• Landings and skid trail density—Through optimum use of existing

trails and selective designation of additional trails, total density was

minimized. Skid trail spacing was no closer than 150 ft, center to center,

where parallel trails were used. Skidding equipment for sawlog removal

was restricted to these designated trails. The number of landings was

kept to a minimum, and they were no larger than 0.25 acre.

• Required equipment—Because direct-mount feller-bunchers (fig. 11)

are driven to each tree, risk of damage to remaining trees and soil is

high. To reduce the risk of soil compaction, the ground pressure of the

tires used on the feller-bunchers and any skidder used for removal of the

biomass was less than 6.5 lb/inch

2

. Equipment with greater ground

pressure was restricted to skid trails.

• Restricted operations—Feller-bunchers and other motorized equipment

were not operated off the skid trails when the soil moisture was sufficient

to permit a sample from the wettest part of the 3 to10 inches soil depth

zone to be molded by hand compression. Also, all skidding operations

ceased on designated skid trails when the potential for puddling existed.

Usually, soils were too wet before June 15 and after early November.

Budget

In 1993, the science team competed successfully for $111,000 in Ecosystem

Management Research dollars from the Washington Office. Although this initial

funding was crucial to the success of the project, it was insufficient to fund

research by all team members each year. Therefore, important team decisions

have been how the dollars were to be allocated. The team makes these decisions

by first determining which activities must be accomplished (fixed costs) within

the budget allocations for that year, and then which activities could be

accomplished that same year (variable costs). The variable costs are prioritized

by team consensus. The fixed costs are subtracted from the allocation, and the

remaining funding is then distributed, by priority, until exhausted. Each team

member has contributed his or her time to the project. The research proposals

they develop for consideration utilize only bare bones costs. Significant

additional funds are needed to capture the full research potential.

The search for interdisciplinary opportunities is a continuing struggle that is

hampered by the geographical separation of many team members and the lack of

expertise in geographic information systems (GIS). In large-scale projects, GIS

can be a valuable tool for discovering spatial patterns and ecosystem linkages.

Although the present budget might allow for contracting specific tasks, the

team’s use of GIS is largely exploratory and a GIS expert is needed. Most of the

disciplines important to the study are represented on the science team with the

exception of forest pathology, botany, and sociology, but these may be acquired

as needed from the National Forest System or academia.

Predicted Outcomes

To aid in designing inventory and monitoring schemes for the various

cooperating disciplines, it was judged useful to anticipate the responses of

various ecosystem components to the treatments (tables 2, 3, and 4). Several

members of the science team participated in this exercise. Although there was

general agreement on most outcomes, several were controversial.
18 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Table 2—Projected short-term vegetational and soil responses anticipated by members of the science team within

the first 5 years after treatment compared to pre-treatment conditions at the Blacks Mountain Ecological Research

Project.1

Tree Mortality Crown Shrub Coarse Grass and forb Soil

growth cover cover woody cover fertility

debris

No grazing No No No No

grazing Grazing grazing grazing Grazing grazing Grazing

Low diversity with fire

+ - --0 - + + 0 +

- + — - - — ++ + + -

- 0 - 0 - — ++ + + 0

0 0 --- - + 0 + +

? + ?- + ? 0 + +

+0 +

Low diversity without fire

+ - — ++ — + + 0 0

++ - — + 0 - ++ + 0 0

+ - - ? - ++ 0 + 0

+ - - +0 — + 0 0 0

? - - +0 + ? 0 0 0

- 0+ + 0

+

High diversity with fire

0 0— 00 - + + + +

0 0- --— + +++

- 0- -- - + +++

0 +- 0- - + + + ?

0 +- -0 0 + 0 0

? +

High diversity without fire

+ - - +0 0 0 + 0 0

+ - - +0 0 + 0 + 0

+ - - +0 0 + 0 0 0

+ - - +0 — 0 0 0 0

0 - - ?0 + ? 0 0 0

+

1Response codes: 0 = no change; + = moderate increase; ++ = large increase; - = moderate decrease;

— = large decrease; and ? = cannot project.

Figure 11—Treatment

installation for the Blacks

Mountain Ecological Research

Project was performed by a tree

shear with a circular sawhead that

cut small sawtimber trees from 10

to 16 inches dbh.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 19

Table 3—Projected mid-term vegetational and soil responses anticipated by members of the science team 10 to 20

years after treatment compared to immediate post-treatment conditions at the Blacks Mountain Ecological Research

Project.1

Tree Mortality Crown Shrub Coarse Grass and forb Soil

growth cover cover woody cover fertility

debris

No grazing No No No No

grazing Grazing grazing grazing Grazing grazing Grazing

Low diversity with fire

+ — ++ 0 + - + 0 0 0

+ - ++ 0 - - + + 0 0

+ - + 0 ? - ++ 0 0 0

++ - 0 ? - + 0 0 -

+ - 0? - 0 0 0 -

Low diversity without fire

+ - ++ + + 0 0 - 0 0

+ - ++ 0 + 0 0 - 0 0

+0 + ++ 0 0 - 0 0

+0 0+ 0 0 - 0 0

+0 ++ 0 0 - 0 0

High diversity with fire

+ - ++ - - 0 0 0 0 0

+ - ++ - 0 0 0 0 0 0

+0 + - 0 0 0 0 0 0

++ - - - - 0 0 0 0

+0 00 - + 0 - -

High diversity without fire

+ + ++ - + + - - + +

- + ++ + + + - - 0 0

00 + 0+ + - - 0 0

- 0 0+ + - - 0 0

00 ++ + - - 0 0

+

1 Response codes: 0 = no change; + = moderate increase; ++ = large increase; - = moderate decrease;

— = large decrease; and ? = cannot project.
20 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Activities of the Component Disciplines

Fire Ecology

Fires burned frequently and usually lightly through the interior ponderosa

pine type before the mid-19th century, strongly influencing the structure,

composition, and function of these forests. Changes in the fire regime (frequency,

severity, size, and distribution) since that time, associated mainly with human

activities (including sheep grazing, logging and fire suppression), have brought

about major changes in these ecosystems (fig. 12).

Activities by fire ecologists at BMEF have focused on studies that are

designed to provide information to increase the potential that the initial

large-scale prescribed burns will be implemented successfully (i.e., without

excessive damage), or address important fire-related questions not dependent on

the large-scale burns. In the first category, we evaluated the effects of season of

burning on duff consumption, soil heating, and mortality in old pine trees. In the

second category, we have completed data collection for a study of factors

influencing decay rates in large downed logs (summarized later in the “Soil

Processes” section) and are collecting data in a large study of spatial patterns of

age-class structure of trees at BMEF as related to historic fire regimes.

Season of Burning—Under pre-European settlement fire regimes in the interior

ponderosa pine type, fires occurred frequently (fig. 13), kept duff and other fuels

at relatively low levels, and therefore, usually burned at low to moderate severity

and did little damage to large trees. The negligible occurrence of fire at BMEF

since the early 20th century, however, has caused substantial increases in duff

depth, especially around the bases of large old trees (because of bark sloughing

Table 4—Short- and mid-term wildlife responses projected by consensus of the science team for the two extreme

treatments at the Blacks Mountain Ecological Research Project. Short-term response is within the first 5 years after

treatment compared to pre-treatment condition. Responses 10 to 20 years after treatment are compared to immediate

post-treatment conditions.1

Species High structural diversity Low structural diversity

without grazing and without fire with grazing and with fire

1-5 years 10-20 years 1-5 years 10-20 years

Birds

Bark probers:

Williamson’s Sapsucker ++ —

Pileated Woodpecker ++ —

Bark gleaners:

Mountain Chickadee 0 0

Red-breasted Nuthatch + —

Leaf gleaners:

Yellow-rumped Warbler - ++

Plumbeous Vireo - -

Terrestrial feeders:

Dark-eyed Junco - +

Chipping Sparrow ++ +

Aerial Sally:

Dusky Flycatcher + -

Mammals

Yellow-pine chipmunk ++ + + 0

Shadow chipmunk - 0 - -

Golden-mantled ground squirrel ++ + + 0

Deer mouse + 0 ++ +

Voles + 0 ++ +

1Response codes: 0 = no change; + = moderate increase; ++ = large increase; - = moderate decrease; —

= large decrease.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 21

Figure 12—Vegetative structure

and species composition changed

dramatically in the interior

ponderosa pine type as a result of

the exclusion of fire and sheep

grazing at the Blacks Mountain

Experimental Forest. Understory

vegetation was sparse beneath

open stands in 1920 (A). By 1946

pine seedlings were abundant and

created a two-storied stand (B)

that by 1994 had become very

dense with abundant white fir (C).

A

B

C
22 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

and other litter deposition). Some studies elsewhere in the west have indicated

that initial prescribed burns in conifer forests from which fire has been excluded

for long periods can cause delayed mortality in such old trees, especially pines.

The mortality evidently is associated with consumption of duff accumulations

around tree bases, probably at least in part because of damage to shallow roots.

Prominent parts of the experimental design at BMEF involve reintroduction of

fire and retention of large old trees as a key part of the high diversity structure

(fig. 14). To increase the probability that these two parts will be compatible, we

undertook a preliminary study of the effects of season of initial fire

reintroduction.

Duff consumption was more spotty in the early spring burns than in later

burns: the surface litter in many cases was simply too wet to carry fire.

Significantly, however, where the litter carried fire, and where more than the

surface couple of millimeters was consumed, the duff invariably was consumed

entirely to mineral soil. We observed no intermediate levels of duff

consumption—for instance, 10 to 90 percent—around the old pines. We had

hoped for such intermediate levels of consumption. Simply skimming the very

top of the litter off, even if we had been able to do that uniformly, would not lead

to better conditions (i.e., reduced duff levels) for the second round of operational

burns.

As expected, in areas where the duff was consumed, burns conducted with

wetter duff and cooler soil had lower maximum temperatures at any given depth

in the upper soil. Nevertheless, the heat generated by duff consumption seems to

have been sufficient, regardless of season of burn, to kill most fine roots in the

zone where most of them occur—lower duff and mineral soil to about 4 inches in

depth. Limited sampling suggests that growth of fine roots is probably active

even at the earliest time of our burns (March) and probably less active in late

summer/early fall. If this is confirmed by more intensive sampling, damage to

fine roots from spring burning might well be expected to affect the old trees more

adversely than burning in early fall. Spring burning may be riskier also from the

standpoint of potential bark beetle-caused mortality after prescribed burns.

The study has not given us a definitive answer about the best time of year to

conduct the initial burns. The only mortality observed, however—3 out of 34

sample trees—was in early spring and late fall. These results suggest that the

possible advantages of early spring initial burns that we originally had

hypothesized (less duff consumption, lower soil temperatures), for old pines

with deep duff mounds around them, may not be real. The “natural” late

summer/early fall burn season may be safer after all, and we have adopted that

season for the large burns.

Figure 13—Interior ponderosa

pine forests burned frequently

before fires were excluded early

in the 1900’s. The dates of fire

scars on large, old trees tell the

story.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 23

Tree Age-class Structure and Historic Fire Regimes—It is recognized in general

terms that recurring fire historically played a key role in influencing the species

composition, stand structure, and landscape mosaic of most forest types in

western North America, including the interior ponderosa pine type. There are no

published studies that describe historical forest development and the role of fire

in that development for the interior ponderosa pine of California.

A detailed fire history is being developed from the analysis of fire scars in

tree rings from BMEF. Cross-sections of stumps and logs are being collected that

exhibit multiple fire scars from each unit. The location of each cross-section is

referenced to the nearest grid point so that the spatial pattern of past fires can be

mapped. The fire scars are being crossdated using standard dendrochronological

techniques to precisely date each fire scar to the year and season of occurrence.

To determine the past influence of fires on stand development, approximately

375 trees have been cored on sample plots associated with the grid in each of the

low-diversity treatment units. These cores will provide age data that will be

compared to the fire history. Each tree sampled in this way has cores or crosssections taken at three different heights—ground line, 20 cm (0.7 ft), and 100 cm

(3.3 ft) above ground line. This will provide data on stand development and

responses to historical fires.

These data will provide detailed background information on the

development of the original forest at BMEF. Tree responses to fire and climate

will be developed. The scheduling of prescribed fires in the prescribed fire splits

will be driven by the variation of the historical fire regime found in the fire

history analysis.

Standing Biomass and Nutrient Content

On the BMEF, 43 trees were felled for biomass and chemical analysis. Sample

tree diameters spanned the full range of those recorded in the pre-treatment

inventory, and species were sampled roughly in proportion to their contribution

to basal area. BMEF trees were pooled with those sampled on two Lassen

National Forest Long-Term Soil Productivity (LTSP) sites, bringing the total to

Figure 14—Preliminary testing of

prescribed fire techniques focused

on preventing mortality of large old

ponderosa pines.
24 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

100 trees (50 percent ponderosa pine, 35 percent white fir, and 15 percent incensecedar). Once felled, biomass was estimated using standard LTSP protocols.

Power function correlations between biomass and nutrient content and tree

dbh were very strong (R

2

 often exceeded 0.9). Ponderosa pine had the greatest

biomass for a given tree diameter, except in pole and smaller size classes where

white fir was slightly heavier because of more massive crowns. This is logical

because ponderosa pine is less shade-tolerant than white fir, which means that

small understory pine would have sparser crowns than fir (or incense-cedar). For

large overstory trees (dbh 40 inches), pines have 27 percent more total biomass

than white fir, and 148 percent more than incense-cedar. Crown biomass

increases with tree size for ponderosa pine and white fir (1,506 lbs and 812 lbs for

pine and fir, respectively, at a dbh of 40 inches), but declines for larger incensecedar. This indicates the upper canopy position and relatively high vigor of large

pine and fir, but a decadent condition for large incense-cedar (which remain in a

subdominant canopy position). Ponderosa pine crowns contain one-fifth of total

tree biomass for dbh’s of 20 inches and greater. But for incense-cedar, the

proportion of crown to total tree biomass declines from 56 percent at 10 inches

dbh to only 9 percent at 40 inches. Nutrient contents increase steadily with tree

size. Nitrogen (N) contents of ponderosa pine range between 1 lb per tree at a

dbh of 10 inches to 33 lb per tree at 40 inches. For larger pine, about 75 percent of

the N is in the commercial bole. White fir has lower absolute amounts of N than

pine, but a higher proportion (about one-third) is in the crown. Regression

equations developed from these data can be used to estimate the nutrient drain

(or retention) occurring during tree harvest operations.

Plant Ecology

Second only to the soil resource, vegetation is the foundation for sustained

productivity and diversity in the ecosystem. Permanent plots keyed to the 100-

meter grid were installed to estimate the structure, density, and species

composition of the flora in the 250-acre units (appendix D). In 1994, an extensive

survey of 25 percent of the grid points documented pre-treatment conditions.

Post-treatment conditions were sampled in Block I in 1998.

Snags and Living Trees—Two nested, fixed-area plots centered on the grid

intersections were used to measure the characteristics of trees and snags before

treatments were installed. Live trees and snags 11.6 inches dbh and larger were

sampled on a 0.2-acre plot. Poles, saplings and seedlings were sampled on a 0.01-

acre plot.

The pre-treatment inventory illustrates the well-recognized ability of Jeffrey

pine to tolerate harsher sites compared to ponderosa pine (table 5). Thus, Jeffrey

pine is found almost exclusively on the floor of the valley where tolerance of late

spring frosts favor Jeffrey pine (the High Pine Block) and on the rocky and

shallow soils at upper elevations (the High Fir Block). White fir and incensecedar are largely absent in the High Pine Block. The pre-treatment inventory also

shows the similarity between the Pine/Fir and High Fir Blocks and their

dissimilarity to the High Pine Block (table 5). Stand density in the RNAs is

noticeably greater, especially as measured by number of pole-sized and larger

trees per acre, than it is in the treatment units. This may reflect the cutting in the

old Methods-of-Cutting plots or some stand characteristic used in selecting the

RNAs.

In 1998 after the treatment was installed in Block I (vegetation manipulated

and prescribed fire applied), this block of units was remeasured (table 6). RNA-C

was remeasured after prescribed fire. The post-treatment inventory was more

intensive. Half rather than one-quarter of the grid points were sampled, and

measurements on smaller trees were intensified. Pole-sized trees (3.5 to 11.5

inches in dbh) were measured on a nested 0.05-acre plot and seedlings and
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 25

saplings on a nested 0.01-acre plot. Also, each seedling and sapling was measured

rather than coded by groups of 10.

Stand densities after vegetation manipulation are noticeably greater in the

high diversity treatment (table 6). Prescribed fire, on the other hand, has not

affected the density of pole-sized and larger trees, at least after the first growing

season (fig. 15).

Transects form the basis for forest floor characteristics, foliar cover and

species frequency for understory species (fig. 16), and woody debris. Transects

are 328 feet (100 meters) in length, oriented in either a northwest or northeast

direction (randomly chosen) and centered on the same grid intersections where

the tree plots are established.

Forest Floor—Forest floor characteristics, foliar cover, and species frequency

were sampled on ten 0.5-m2 (5.38ft2) plots randomly located along the 100-m

transect. The overwhelming impression of pretreatment forest floor conditions is

that variation among units and among blocks is surprisingly small (table 7).

Although differences are subtle, the following trends are apparent: nearly three

Table 5—Large snag and living tree characteristics before installing treatments in the Blacks Mountain Ecological

Research Project.

Unit ---Snags > 24 inches dbh--- ------------------Living trees > 3.5 inches dbh---------------

Number/acre Basal area (ft2/acre) Number/acre

PIPO1 ABCO LIDE PIPO PIJE ABCO LIDE PIPO PIJE ABCO LIDE

High Pine

High diversity

38 2 < 1 0 124 8 2 0 283 18 3 0

41 1 0 1 78 26 4 14 177 84 9 42

Low diversity

39 2 0 0 72 18 0 0 176 37 0 0

43 1 1 0 73 11 32 21 190 17 125 42

Pine/Fir

High diversity

42 1 2 0 80 0 121 10 143 0 287 20

47 2 2 <1 50 7 8 35 125 12 31 43

Low diversity

44 2 2 0 104 0 32 14 177 0 112 22

45 2 1 < 1 86 9 54 8 185 14 142 20

High Fir

High diversity

48 2 1 0 57 37 97 1 91 55 223 4

49 1 2 0 81 0 38 12 122 0 117 25

Low diversity

40 1 3 < 1 88 6 54 24 180 19 293 27

46 2 3 0 40 14 61 19 110 37 180 29

RNA-C2 3 0 0 125 6 11 2 316 18 21 4

RNA-B 3 1 1 69 17 23 50 200 70 83 129

RNA-A 2 1 0 138 2 15 32 368 4 50 55

RNA-D 2 1 1 105 0 58 24 294 0 198 50

1 Species codes are: PIPO = Pinus ponderosa, ABCO = Abies concolor, LIDE = Libocedrus decurrens and

PIJE = Pinus jeffreyi. 2 RNA = Research Natural Area.
26 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Figure 15—Diameter

distributions for Block I after

treatment installation. High

structural diversity treatment

without and with prescribed

burn (A). Low structural

diversity without and with

prescribed burn (B).

A

B
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 27

Table 6—Large snag and living tree characteristics after installing treatments in Block I and Research Natural

Area-C (RNA-C).

Unit Burn ---Snags > 24 inches dbh--- ------------------Living trees > 3.5 inches dbh---------------

Number/acre Basal area (ft2/acre) Number/acre

PIPO/PIJE1 ABCO LIDE PIPO PIJE ABCO LIDE PIPO PIJE ABCO LIDE

High Pine

High diversity

38 Yes < 1 0 0 84 6 0 0 105 11 0 0

No < 1 0 0 84 2 3 1 98 3 6 1

41 Yes 0 0 0 71 12 4 9 75 14 7 19

No 2 0 1 67 4 7 13 92 4 18 21

Low diversity

39 Yes < 1 0 0 18 11 0 0 53 14 0 0

No < 1 0 0 71 12 4 9 54 14 0 0

43 Yes < 1 0 0 18 2 11 2 38 8 19 4

No 1 0 0 20 2 6 5 49 3 13 9

RNA-C Yes 1 0 0 122 5 7 1 293 9 17 2

1 See table 5 for acronyms.

Figure 16—Understory

vegetation and forest floor

conditions were sampled on

0.5 m2

 circular plots along a

100 meter transect.
28 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

quarters of the forest floor is covered by litter in all units and blocks; the RNAs

have an even greater proportion of litter than the treatment units; and more

mineral soil is exposed in the High Pine Blocks.

After treatment installation in the High Pine Block (table 8), the proportion of

the ground exposed to mineral soil increased as expected. The decrease in the

proportion of the ground covered with small woody debris and partially

decomposed large woody debris was unexpected, however. Prescribed fire

strongly increased the proportion of mineral soil, as expected. But its affect on

the proportion of litter was weaker.

Foliar Cover—Ceanothus prostratus dominates foliar cover in all units and RNAs

(table 9). In general, the High Pine Block has a greater amount of perennial

Table 7—Forest floor characteristics before installing treatments in the Blacks Mountain Ecological Research

Project.

Unit Burn ----------------Percent of the forest floor in condition categories1---------------------------

LITT SMWD LAWD-U LAWD-P ROCK SOIL GRAV ALIT

High Pine

High diversity

38 Yes 78 11 1 4 3 3 0 < 1

No 75 11 < 1 3 2 9 0 < 1

41 Yes 63 13 2 6 9 5 < 1 < 1

No 71 11 2 3 5 6 1 1

Low diversity

39 Yes 71 15 < 1 2 6 5 0 < 1

No 73 12 < 1 2 4 8 0 < 1

43 Yes 75 16 < 1 3 1 4 0 0

No 72 18 < 1 5 2 3 0 < 1

Pine/Fir

High diversity

42 Yes 61 17 1 8 2 5 < 1 0

No 72 15 < 1 8 1 3 < 1 < 1

47 Yes 74 8 3 5 6 3 1 0

No 74 11 2 4 6 2 0 0

Low diversity

44 Yes 62 16 < 1 13 2 5 < 1 0

No 68 20 1 8 1 2 0 < 1

45 Yes 65 11 1 6 10 5 < 1 < 1

No 65 17 1 6 9 1 0 < 1

High Fir

High diversity

48 Yes 71 19 1 3 5 1 0 < 1

No 68 13 < 1 7 8 4 0 < 1

49 Yes 67 18 3 5 3 4 < 1 < 1

No 67 12 3 6 7 3 < 1 < 1

Low diversity

40 Yes 62 25 1 6 4 1 0 < 1

No 67 20 3 5 3 1 0 < 1

46 Yes 62 15 2 10 6 6 < 1 0

No 57 17 1 7 10 8 0 0

RNA-A2 No 86 1 3 4 3 1 0 0

RNA-B Yes 80 4 1 7 5 2 < 1 0

RNA-C Yes 91 1 4 0 2 2 < 1 < 1

RNA-D No 87 2 1 4 1 4 0 0

1 Forest floor categories are LITT = litter, SMWD = small woody debris (1-3 inches), LAWD = large

woody debris (> 3 inches), U = undecomposed (structure intact, includes charred remains), P =

partially decomposed (crumbly, brown cubical rot present with structural materials), ROCK = rock,

SOIL = soil, GRAV = gravel, and ALIT = animal litter.

2 RNA = Research Natural Area.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 29

Table 8—Forest floor characteristics after installing treatments in the Blacks Mountain Ecological Research

Project.

Unit Burn -------------------------Percent of the forest floor in condition categories1--------------------------------

LITT SMWD LAWD-U LAWD-P ROCK SOIL GRAV ALIT ASH

High Pine

High diversity

38 Yes 68 1 < 1 2 4 24 < 1 < 1 0

No 72 6 1 < 1 2 16 < 1 < 1 0

41 Yes 40 2 < 1 2 8 39 5 < 1 3

No 63 3 0 2 2 28 0 0 0

Low diversity

39 Yes 52 4 < 1 1 7 36 < 1 < 1 0

No 64 3 1 3 4 23 < 1 0 0

43 Yes 40 4 < 1 < 1 3 50 1 0 0

No 62 5 2 6 0 26 0 0 0

RNA-C Yes 59 2 < 1 < 1 3 34 < 1 0 0

1 See table 7 for acronyms.

grasses than did the other blocks. Perennial grasses were entirely absent in the

RNAs probably because of the high stand densities and the high proportion of

litter cover. Purshia tridentata was more abundant in the High Pine Block, whereas

Arctostaphylos patula was more common in the Pine/Fir Block.

The most noticeable change in foliar cover after installing the treatments

seems to be the greater proportion of annual grasses and forbs (table 10).

Frequency of Common Understory Species—The frequency of Festuca idahoensis

and the diversity of other common understory species was noticeably greater in

the High Pine Block than in the other two blocks and the RNAs (table 11).

After treatments were installed in the High Pine Block, forbs became more

abundant (table 12). Little effect of prescribed fire was noted in the frequency of

common understory species.

Large Woody Debris—Woody debris larger than 3 inches in diameter was

estimated by the line intercept method along the 100-m transect. The diameter of

each intercepted piece was measured perpendicular to its long axis. Volume of

large woody debris was calculated by using the following equation for each

transect (Brown 1974):

Volume/ha = 0.01233(sum of diameters2

)

Table 13 seems to indicate that differences among blocks and RNAs are

surprisingly small in both cover and volume of large woody debris. A careful

analysis, however, may show a greater volume of partially decomposed debris in

the High Fir Block.

Complete treatment installation in the High Pine Block seemed to have little

influence on the coverage and volumes of large woody debris (table 14).

Vegetation Ground Photography—Pre-treatment conditions were

photographed in 1995 and 1996 and post-treatment conditions of Block I in 1998.

At each grid point sampled for vegetation, a 35 mm color slide was taken with a

35 mm lens on the same azimuth as the 328 ft (100 m) transect location that

sampled the forest floor and understory vegetation. The direction of most slides

is northwest or northeast. The lower third of each photograph shows the forest

floor and the upper two-thirds shows the trees (fig. 5).
30 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Soil Processes

Decay Rates of Downed Logs—Large downed logs have potential significance

in forested ecosystems, including habitat for a wide range of organisms, cycling

of carbon and other elements, water retention, and reduction of soil erosion (fig.

17). One of the characteristics of interest is rate of decay, because of practical

concerns about how rapidly highly-decomposed logs can be replaced in the

system, and whether significant quantities of such logs could even exist in a

regime of frequent fires. The study was made possible by the existence of data

from the Methods-of-Cutting plots that date back to the 1930’s and 1940’s. Data

analysis is not complete but a few general observations are possible.

Table 9—Proportion of the forest floor covered by foliage of common understory plant species before installing

treatments in the Blacks Mountain Ecological Research Project.

Unit Burn ----------------------Percent of the forest floor in condition categories1--------------------------------

CEPR GRAP OTSH ABCO FORP PUTR ARPA LIDE PIPO GRLK

High Pine

High diversity

38 Yes 8 4 < 1 0 < 1 2 0 0 < 1 1

No 5 4 < 1 < 1 < 1 2 < 1 0 0 < 1

41 Yes 8 2 < 1 < 1 1 1 < 1 3 0 1

No 7 2 1 < 1 3 1 2 1 < 1 1

Low diversity

39 Yes 2 7 < 1 0 < 1 3 1 0 < 1 < 1

No 3 7 < 1 0 < 1 3 < 1 0 < 1 < 1

43 Yes 4 3 1 < 1 1 < 1 < 1 0 < 1 < 1

No 4 1 1 < 1 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

Pine/Fir

High diversity

42 Yes 3 1 3 3 < 1 0 1 < 1 0 < 1

No 6 1 5 4 1 > 1 1 < 1 0 < 1

47 Yes 10 1 1 1 1 < 1 4 2 0 < 1

No 10 1 < 1 3 1 0 2 4 0 1

Low diversity

44 Yes 6 1 < 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1

No 5 < 1 0 2 < 1 0 1 < 1 0 < 1

45 Yes 4 1 2 1 1 < 1 2 1 < 1 1

No 2 1 4 3 1 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1

High Fir

High diversity

48 Yes 3 < 1 3 2 1 0 < 1 0 < 1 < 1

No 5 1 4 1 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 1

49 Yes 4 1 1 2 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 0 1

No 6 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 < 1 1

Low diversity

40 Yes 5 < 1 3 < 1 < 1 0 < 1 < 1 0 < 1

No 3 < 1 2 1 < 1 0 < 1 < 1 0 < 1

46 Yes 3 < 1 1 1 < 1 < 1 2 1 0 1

No 5 < 1 1 1 < 1 0 1 < 1 0 1

RNA-A No 18 0 0 < 1 0 2 < 1 < 1 2 1

RNA-B Yes 17 0 < 1 1 0 < 1 1 < 1 0 0

RNA-C Yes 14 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 0 1 3

RNA-D No 9 0 0 1 < 1 0 1 < 1 1 0

1Foliar cover categories are CEPR = Ceanothus prostratus, GRAP = perennial grasses, OTSH = other

shrub species, ABCO = Abies concolor, FORP = perennial forbs, PUTR = Purshia tridentata, ARPA =

Arctostaphylos patula, LIDE = Libocedrus decurrens, PIPO = Pinus ponderosa, and GRLK = grass-like

species (Carex rossii, primarily).
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 31

Table 10—Proportion of the forest floor covered by foliage of common understory plant species after installing

treatments in the Blacks Mountain Ecological Research Project.

Unit Burn --------------------Percent of the forest floor in condition categories1----------------------

GRAA CEPR FOR A PUTR GRLK FORP ARTR SYMO GRAP ARPA

High Pine

High diversity

38 Yes 4 6 0 2 0 0 0 < 1 0 0

No 2 9 1 2 1 1 0 0 < 1 < 1

41 Yes 1 1 2 1 < 1 < 1 0 < 1 < 1 0

No — — — — — — — — — —

Low diversity

39 Yes 5 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 < 1 0

No 8 4 4 6 < 1 1 3 0 0 1

43 Yes 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 < 1 0 0

No 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0

RNA-C

Yes 2 8 < 1 0 0 < 1 < 1 0 0 0

1 Species codes not identified previously are GRAA = annual grasses, FOR A = annual forbs, and

SYMO = Symphoricarpos mollis.

The downed logs spanned a wide range of decay classes—from class 2 to

class 5 (Thomas and others 1979). Clearly, 100+ years are not required to reach

decay class 5, even in the relatively cold/dry environment of the interior

ponderosa pine type. As expected, white fir decays more rapidly than the other

conifer species at the BMEF. A section of log in contact with the soil apparently

decays significantly more rapidly than one suspended off the ground. This

certainly makes sense because of proximity to soil-inhabiting decomposers and

greater retention of moisture during the summer for a log in contact with the soil.

Nutrient Cycling—Forest vegetation depends on adequate nutrition for growth

and vigor. Throughout the interior ponderosa pine region, the cool dry climate

has produced soils that are weakly developed.

Nitrogen (N), the principal nutrient limiting the growth of western forests, is

in short supply. This limits the abundance, diversity, and vigor of vegetation.

The two primary sources of N for all terrestrial ecosystems are ammonium and

nitrate ions dissolved in rainfall and biological N fixation by microorganisms.

Figure 17—The rate of decay of

downed logs is being studied as

part of the Blacks Mountain

Ecological Research Project.
32 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Since 1992, an interdisciplinary team of scientists has been studying rates of

N fixation, N mineralization, and root development patterns under contrasting

forest conditions. One is a simple forest structure consisting of many openings

and a limited overstory cover. Within the openings are shrub communities

containing antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), a plant associated with N

fixing bacteria that has nutritional value as a forage species for deer and livestock.

The second is an undisturbed, complex, multilayered forest structure. Openings

are few and much of the ground cover consists of fallen trees in advanced stages

of decay (fig. 18). Such trees are the principal habitat for free-living

microorganisms that fix nitrogen. Investigations include nitrogen fixation by

free-living bacteria beneath antelope bitterbrush, grasses and pine needle litter,

and downed trees in advanced stages of decay. Also studied beneath the same

ground cover classes are N mineralization and leaching in the forest floor and

surface soil horizons, root development and mycorrhizal presence, and seasonal

patterns of these.

Table 11—Frequency of common understory plant species before installing treatments in the Blacks Mountain

Ecological Research Project.

Unit Burn Percent of the forest floor in condition categories1

FEID CEPR CARO SYMO SIHY MOOD PUTR PHGR COPA PIPO

High Pine

High diversity

38 Yes 63 31 39 1 20 4 28 11 4 9

No 56 28 37 0 24 8 26 16 8 8

41 Yes 25 34 29 4 9 4 5 0 0 1

No 19 34 28 12 14 8 4 0 0 0

Low diversity

39 Yes 79 14 18 0 18 8 39 10 17 5

No 74 25 24 0 19 2 29 14 18 7

43 Yes 44 26 23 3 34 13 4 6 12 12

No 36 35 16 3 13 7 4 6 9 13

Pine/Fir

Highdiversity

42 Yes 3 9 12 27 12 11 0 0 0 1

No 4 25 14 50 13 19 0 0 0 1

47 Yes 17 39 23 17 11 13 1 0 0 1

No 9 49 23 9 16 3 0 0 0 0

Low diversity

44 Yes 8 17 17 20 6 4 0 0 0 0

No 12 17 30 7 2 0 0 0 0 0

45 Yes 10 26 9 20 9 13 1 1 6 1

No 8 12 8 31 0 9 0 4 1 6

High Fir

High diversity

48 Yes 9 10 9 17 4 12 0 3 2 1

No 19 18 8 28 3 16 0 14 9 2

49 Yes 11 19 18 26 4 11 0 0 2 2

No 11 32 20 11 8 8 0 0 1 2

Low diversity

40 Yes 9 22 14 30 6 8 0 6 4 0

No 10 20 10 28 4 9 0 8 8 0

46 Yes 6 19 26 24 11 16 3 0 0 0

No 8 17 25 15 8 6 0 0 2 0

RNA-A No 18 46 31 3 0 24 6 3 0 25

RNA-B Yes 0 47 14 18 0 < 1 1 9 11 27

RNA-C Yes 38 53 31 0 1 3 2 1 14 10

RNA-D No 7 37 42 2 0 10 0 5 0 5

1 Species codes not identified previously are FEID = Festuca idahoensis, CARO = Carex rossii, SIHY =

Sitanion hystrix, MOOD = Monardella odaritissima, PHGR = Phlox gracilis, and COPA = Collinsia

parviflora.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 33

Table 12—Frequency of common understory plant species after treatment installation in the Blacks Mountain

Ecological Research Project.

Unit Burn -------------------------Percent of the forest floor in condition categories1----------------------------

CEPR CARO FEID GASP COPA ACOC PUTR VIPU LUAR PHGR

High Pine

High diversity

38 Yes 42 40 54 17 20 13 15 5 6 1

No 29 51 44 26 38 29 29 9 6 17

41 Yes 52 35 16 25 24 9 7 5 15 7

No — — — — — — — — — —

Low diversity

39 Yes 51 56 40 28 33 21 20 15 6 3

No 13 35 50 27 40 35 33 17 6 4

43 Yes 64 55 34 36 15 31 2 5 3 1

No 67 39 6 22 28 33 0 17 6 11

RNA-C Yes 72 28 39 15 5 16 1 3 1 1

1 Species codes not identified previously are GASP = Gayophytum species, ACOC = Achnatherum

occidentalis, VIPU = Viola purpurea, and LUAR= Lupinus argenteus.

Soil physical and nutritional properties and processes have been documented

at 18 spatially referenced locations. Included are N fixation and mineralization

rates associated with the three major categories of ground cover classes (pine

needle litter, antelope bitterbrush, and large woody debris). The biomass,

chemical content, and aerial distribution of large woody debris and the most

ecologically important shrub, antelope bitterbrush, have also been described.

Field sampling has been completed for estimating the biomass and nutrient

content contained in crowns and boles of ponderosa pine, white fir, and

incense-cedar in the pine type.

The soil cover/process work centered on the Methods-of-Cutting plots. Two

contrasting treatments were selected: the heavy Forest Service (HFS) cut that

mimics the low structural diversity treatment and the control that mimics the

high structural diversity treatment.

We found that the total biomass of large, woody debris in advanced stages of

decay is conservatively one and a half times greater on the control plots than on

Figure 18—The contribution of

downed trees in advanced stages of

decay to tree root development,

nutrient cycling, and other soil

processes is being intensively

studied.
34 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Table 13—Percent cover and volume of large woody debris by categories of decomposition before installing

treatments in the Blacks Mountain Ecological Research Project.1

Unit Burn Undecomposed Partially decomposed Fully decomposed

Cover Volume Cover Volume Cover

(percent) (m3/ha) (percent) (m3/ha) (percent)

High Pine

High diversity

38 Yes 0.60 3.70 1.79 15.00 2.33

No 0.23 1.69 2.04 13.70 1.67

41 Yes 0.58 3.17 2.31 19.80 4.84

No 1.07 5.70 1.57 10.40 1.85

Low diversity

39 Yes 0.37 3.40 1.07 11.40 0.64

No 0.27 2.68 1.46 10.80 1.16

43 Yes 0.59 2.56 0.62 7.12 1.58

No 0.35 2.52 2.94 15.55 3.25

Pine/Fir

High diversity

42 Yes 1.14 4.90 2.34 22.26 5.45

No 0.23 4.12 1.73 12.6 5.16

47 Yes 0.64 6.71 2.02 14.88 3.57

No 0.90 5.41 1.45 9.76 3.97

Low diversity

44 Yes 0.46 11.09 2.31 9.67 10.16

No 0.91 5.64 1.95 14.68 8.04

45 Yes 0.68 4.95 3.54 22.98 3.44

No 2.81 4.25 4.12 25.36 1.59

High Fir

High diversity

48 Yes 1.55 5.54 0.80 5.95 2.72

No 0.64 2.34 3.84 31.46 3.56

49 Yes 1.39 5.89 2.83 18.61 4.22

No 1.73 11.68 1.42 7.70 5.52

Low diversity

40 Yes 0.89 7.89 1.93 16.64 6.40

No 1.62 10.36 1.69 14.70 5.50

46 Yes 0.96 3.38 3.02 15.58 6.29

No 1.11 7.92 1.89 10.44 5.95

RNA-C Yes 1.61 2.63 2.20 10.3 1.37

RNA-B Yes 2.46 10.82 4.08 20.44 2.94

1Volumes for fully decomposed large woody debris are not given because the volume equation

assumes that the structure is largely intact.

HFS. An obvious conclusion from this is that there is far less recruitment from

snag fall on the HFS (so we can conclude that the same will be true for the low

diversity treatments). The results also showed that the lignin content of the

downed trees on the control plots was higher than on HFS, indicating a higher

degree of decomposition. This is supported by consistently higher nutrient

concentration.

N processes within and beneath large, downed woody debris are no greater

than beneath other types of ground cover. In fact, the areal importance of

downed woody debris as an N source is less in proportion to its areal cover than

other cover types. Although large roots of pines do utilize the brown cubical

stage of decay in downed trees, the importance of this as a rooting medium is

apparently no greater than that for mineral soil. Downed trees in advanced

stages of decay are home to many fungal species. Nearly 200 individual species

were identified, including one new species (Larsen and others 1996).

Zoologically, however, downed logs seemed deserts. Few, if any, soil or litter

fauna were found in logs in advanced stages of decay.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 35

Antelope bitterbrush, although relatively rich in protein (giving it browse

value), adds very little nitrogen to either ecosystem through symbiotic fixation.

Primarily, this is due to its low coverage, and not to age or to overstory cover.

Ceanothus prostratus (which has little if any browse value) has twice the coverage

and fixes more than twice as much nitrogen.

Coarse Woody Debris Arthropods—Arthropods are crucial to the

biodegradation of down woody debris. Beetles open the interior surfaces of

standing and down woody material to decomposition by microbial decomposers.

Other groups of arthropods, such as fungivorous flies, oribatid mites, termites,

and ants, participate in the further recycling of coarse woody debris. At BMEF,

we are assessing the effects of differences in stand structure and prescribed fire

on this crucial community of arthropods and their functional role in the

ecosystem. Consumption rates, colonization by arthropods and fungi, and

changes in physical characteristics of standardized samples are being assessed

on each unit. Also, we are sampling the arthropod community in the existing

down woody debris and the forest floor using pitfall traps.

Soil Arthropods—A study comparing the sensitivity of two sampling protocols

for detecting effects of forest stand structure on soil-dwelling Coleoptera was

conducted in 1997. The intent was to determine whether tree-centered transects,

by accommodating heterogeneity induced in the below-ground habitat by the

presence of trees, provide a more sensitive test of effects of tree harvest on soil

and litter-dwelling Coleoptera than do spatially random transects. Samples were

taken in September 1997 soon after harvest operations were completed. The two

sampling protocols consisted of 20-foot long east-west transects centered on

randomly selected 14-inch dbh ponderosa pines, and identical transects centered

on spatially random stakes (fig. 19). Tree-centered transects, by most measures,

captured more of the beetle diversity and abundance than spatially random

transects. Preliminary results from oribatid mite sampling using tree-centered

transects in the units in Block I with and without prescribed fire suggest that low

intensity prescribe fire has little effect on species richness, diversity, and

evenness. Moderate intensity prescribed fire, however, has a more profound

effect on the measures of community structure.

Forest Genetics

Biodiversity maintenance is essential to protect the health, productivity, and

sustainability of ecosystems. At the basis of biodiversity is the genetic component:

the diversity of the gene pool and its distribution within and among populations.

Table 14—Percent cover and volume of large woody debris by categories of decomposition after installing

treatments in the Blacks Mountain Ecological Research Project.

Unit Burn Undecomposed Partially decomposed Fully decomposed

Cover Volume Cover Volume Cover

(percent) (m3/ha) (percent) (m3/ha) (percent)

High Pine

High diversity

38 Yes 0.36 1.32 0.81 2.87 0.10

No 0.52 1.43 2.23 12.53 2.69

41 Yes 1.06 3.50 0.74 2.46 0.39

No 0.98 1.91 3.25 11.69 2.21

Low diversity

39 Yes 0.52 2.51 0.69 2.70 0.30

No 1.46 2.97 1.33 5.18 1.27

43 Yes 0.59 1.96 0.37 1.15 0.28

No 0.21 2.36 4.20 22.62 6.29

RNA-C Yes 1.04 2.71 0.64 4.73 0.22
36 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Changes in genetic diversity may result in forest composition and structure

changes. These changes may impact wildlife, forest productivity, forest health,

insects and diseases, and all other ecosystem processes.

Baseline genetic diversity has been determined for ponderosa pine, antelope

bitterbrush, and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis). Tissue samples were collected

and referenced to the 100-meter grid. Starch gel electrophoresis of isozymes was

used to assess genetic variation of each of the three species. Data were analyzed

to quantify the level of genetic diversity and its structure. These baseline genetic

data are the genetic control level of reference that will be used to evaluate the

impact of management options on genetic diversity of these systems over time.

The genetic experimental design for the sampling strategy is in place. During

the summer 1994 and before treatment implementation, the collection of conifer,

antelope bitterbrush, and Idaho fescue samples began. These preliminary data

and the post-treatment response data will be compared to determine the effects

of and differences between the treatments. Also, this genetic information will

assist managers in developing strategies that sustain or enhance genetic diversity

and ecosystem health.

Forest Entomology

Bark Beetles—Bark beetles are a major cause of tree mortality in the interior

ponderosa pine type, particularly during periods of extended drought (fig. 20).

Thus, they are important in forest dynamics and nutrient cycling and in creating

critical wildlife habitat. Changes in patterns of tree mortality over time and space

in response to forest treatments are being monitored by ground survey and

aerial photography.

From 1993 to 1996 data were collected on the distribution, impact, and yearto-year variation of bark beetle-caused tree mortality. The spatial distribution

and rate of tree mortality has been censussed on all 12 units. Stem maps have

been generated that display percent mortality by tree species, insect species,

diameter distribution by tree and insect species, mortality group size, and insect

species composition within mortality groups. These data have been entered into

Figure 19—Soil arthropods

were collected from litter

samples along tree-centered and

randomly located transects.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 37

the relational database for spatial analysis and corporate use by other researchers

(wildlife/snag research, dynamics of coarse woody debris, soil nutrient cycling).

Tree mortality from 1991 to 1996 ranged from 5 to 15 percent during any one

year. Although four species of primary tree-killing bark beetles predominate, at

least two other species of bark beetles were discovered killing trees. The eastside

pine type is unique in North America for the number of primary tree killing bark

beetles.

In 1993, members of the interdisciplinary research team initiated a study of the

responses of insects, fungi, and wildlife to two different causes of tree death:

ponderosa pines baited with bark beetle attractant and killed by the beetles (fig. 21)

compared to pines killed by mechanical girdling. In addition to pheromone versus

mechanical girdling, subtreatments include spring versus fall treatments and small

(15 to 25 inches dbh) versus large (35 to 50 inches dbh) target trees. Variables of

interest include insect, fungal, and cavity-dependent species responses to different

snags, and the relationship of insects and fungi to the process of snag deterioration.

Results of this controlled experiment will be of great interest and benefit to other

members of the interdisciplinary team, especially those involved with wildlife, soil

nutrient cycling, fire ecology, and entomology.

Wildlife Ecology

Small mammals and birds are key components of interior ponderosa pine

forests. They distribute fruits of various plants and fungi and provide part of the

food base for predatory species, and birds, in particular, are predators of insects.

These wildlife are responsive to changes in composition and structure of

forests as well as environmental gradients, such as elevation. The bird and small

mammal study includes:

• Measuring and interpreting responses to experimental treatments.

• Changes in the vertebrate assemblages relative to changes in

elevation.

• Relationships to variation in microhabitat characteristics.

• Home range patterns and sizes related to vegetation structure and

spatial pattern.

Figure 20—A ponderosa pine at

Blacks Mountain Experimental

Forest that has been killed by bark

beetles. Bark beetles play an

important role in forest dynamics,

nutrient cycling, and in creating

wildlife habitat.
38 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

• Basic biological patterns relative to time (using time as a variable

that includes other variables such as weather, disease incidence,

population level changes, vegetation change, etc.) and time since

treatment.

The BMEF small mammal and bird pre-treatment research work began in the

spring 1992. Each year the siting of traps and trapping begins in late spring and

runs until late fall to ensure that a maximum amount of information is collected

on the variation in populations of certain mammals. Bird point counts begin in

the early spring and terminate before summer. Nest searches, observations of

foraging, and collection of microhabitat information around nest sites and

foraging locations continue through the spring and into the summer to develop

information on the productivity of birds and microhabitat use in the experimental

units. This set of data will aid in understanding population fluctuations without

treatments and wildlife responses to the research treatments.

Birds—From 1989 to 1991, the relations of breeding birds to snag densities were

studied in interior ponderosa pine forests in northeastern California, including

BMEF. Approximately 100 species of birds were detected during this study with

the majority of species being detected at least once at one of the BMEF sites

(appendix D). The most commonly detected birds were (order is phylogenetic not

in order of abundance): Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus), White-headed

Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus), Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus), Dusky

Flycatcher (Empidonax oberholseri), Mountain Chickadee (Parus gambeli), Redbreasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis),

Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea), Brown Creeper (Certhia americana), American

Robin (Turdus migratorius), Yellow-rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata),

Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerina), and Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis).

In 1995, a series of point count stations were established and breeding bird

counts made in each of the experimental units (fig. 22). To date, 72 species have

been encountered. A baseline of density and diversity of these species has been

assessed. In addition, detailed data collection on foraging microhabitat of some

20 core species has been gathered. Together, the data on avian abundance and

diversity with microhabitat use patterns will provide the baseline for

Figure 21—A satellite study is

testing the responses of insects,

fungi, and wildlife to two different

causes of ponderosa pine

mortality. The organisms living in

this tree baited with bark beetle

attractant and killed by beetles

are being compared to pines

killed by mechanical girdling. The

funnel traps are capturing insects

entering and leaving the tree.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 39

comparisons and contrasts with the forest manipulations underway. The result

will be a novel and important data set on how the avian assemblage responds to

interior ponderosa pine forest structure attributes.

Snags (standing dead trees) are important habitat for wildlife, especially

cavity-nesting birds. Larger diameter snags seem to be more desirable than

smaller ones. Recent work in interior ponderosa pine forests confirm these

relationships but also indicate that many apparently suitable snags are not as

desirable for nest sites as others. Snag demography has been examined on eight

units beginning in 1989 and is expected to continue in future years. Snag

recruitment and loss and change in characteristics caused by deterioration has

been documented. This information provides insights into the number of snags

expected in interior ponderosa pine forests through time and the characteristics

of recruitment and loss. Currently, the major cause of tree mortality is bark

beetles, and we initiated an experiment in 1993 to evaluate the differences

between bark beetle-killed trees and girdled trees.

Small Mammals (Rodents)—Beginning in 1992, small mammal populations

were sampled by using Sherman XLK1

 live traps and, to a lesser extent, pitfall

and larger mesh Tomahawk live traps. Resulting information provided a better

understanding of the small mammals found within BMEF, information about the

patterns of movement of animals on study units (fig. 23), a baseline for the

ecosystem management experiment, and information to develop hypotheses

relative to the responses of small mammals to the experimental treatments. Small

mammal species detected in the forested plots to date include (in phylogenetic

order): Trowbridge’s shrew (Sorex trowbridgii), yellow-pine chipmunk (Tamias

amoenus), Townsend’s chipmunk (Shadow) (Tamias townsendii ), lodgepole

chipmunk (Tamias speciosus), Belding’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus beldingi),

California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), golden-mantled ground

squirrel (Spermophilus lateralis), western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), Douglas’

squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii), northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus),

mountain pocket gopher (Thomomys monticola), deer mouse (Peromyscus

maniculatus), bushy-tailed woodrat (Neotoma cinerea), western red-backed vole

(Clethrionomys californicus), montane vole (Microtus montanus), and long-tailed

vole (Microtus longicaudus).

Figure 22—Breeding birds were

counted, including this incubating

Townsend’s solitaire (Myadestes

townsendii), on each study unit.

1 Trade names and commercial

products are mentioned solely

for information. No endorsement by the U.S. Department

of Agriculture is implied.
40 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Bats—A survey of the bat fauna within BMEF was conducted in 1995 (Philpott

and Petersen 1995). Bats were sampled using acoustical and mist-netting methods

at four sites within the BMEF and two sites at lower elevations outside the BMEF.

The six sampling sites were selected by evaluating potential for bat activity

through presence of habitat characteristics, such as water and riparian vegetation,

and determination of bat presence through acoustical sampling. Nine sites within

the BMEF were considered to be potential sites to conduct mist netting for bats

because of the presence of water and riparian vegetation. Subsequent acoustical

sampling determined that five of the sites had insufficient bat activity to warrant

mist net installation and sampling and acoustical sampling. Sampling at sites

was conducted for a minimum of 4.5 hours each night from approximately 1230

and 0100 hours. Thirteen of California’s 23 species of bats were predicted to be

found in the vicinity of the BMEF. Eight bat species using the BMEF as a flight

corridor or foraging area were detected in this survey. Thirty-three bats were

captured during the survey: 26 (79 percent) were males and 24 (72 percent) were

adults; the remainder were juveniles (7 to 21 percent) or of unknown age (2 to 6

percent). The bat fauna was dominated by long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) (15

to 45 percent), with fewer numbers of little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus),

long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), California myotis (Myotis californicus), smallfooted myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), silver-haired

bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus).

Herpetofauna—Amphibians and reptiles have been studied by using 5-gallon

pitfall traps and serendipitous detections. Information collected provides insights

into animals found on the BMEF and their presence on study units. Amphibians

and lizards detected at BMEF to date include (in phylogenetic order): Great Basin

spadefoot (Scaphiopus intermontanus), western toad (Bufo boreas), Pacific treefrog

(Hyla (Pseudacris) regilla), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), and

sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus).

Grazing Science

The maintenance of complex understory vegetation is critical to maintaining

biological diversity. Plant communities at the BMEF evolved with large

Figure 23—Baseline information

was obtained on the movement

patterns of small mammals.

Golden-mantled ground squirrels

were the most numerous of the

animals studied.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 41

herbivores (deer and pronghorn) and have been grazed by cattle and sheep for

decades. The effects of grazing on plant communities need to be evaluated in

terms of plant species diversity, plant abundance, and plant species development.

The effects of grazing on soil need to be evaluated in terms of nutrient cycling,

compaction, and erosion.

Little is known about the effects of grazing on multi-layered tree, shrub, and

herb communities where livestock forage preference certainly varies seasonally

depending on grazing intensity. Although there are many complex mechanisms

acting to create mosaics of trees, shrubs, and herbs in the interior pine/antelope

bitterbrush/Idaho fescue association, accurate plant biodiversity responses of

sites to forest management, prescribed fire, and grazing intensity would

contribute to an understanding of grazing effects in this ecosystem. The array of

replicated treatments coupled with an accurate measure of grazing intensity for

the cattle grazing treatments would allow development of predictive models for

grazing effects in this ecosystem. The opportunity to investigate ecosystem

responses, especially the presence and abundance of small mammals, reptiles

and amphibians, to cattle grazing in a replicated field design is unique.

Conclusions

The interdisciplinary science team studying the forest structural complexity

and ecosystem responses to disturbances at the BMEF has built a solid foundation

for continued progress. The uniqueness of the research project is that all

disciplines participated from the beginning in designing the study and, as a

result, all participants had equal ownership. Also, participation is based on the

interest and time availability of the scientists rather than assignment to the team

by supervisors. Salary support for Forest Service scientists and consistent base

funding were critical early components.

This dedicated science team is willing to compromise to ensure the success of

the overall project, and is committed to its long-term success. Silviculturists took

the lead in organizing the project because they are the experts in vegetation

management and because silviculture integrates the other disciplines. The team

was quick to recognize that an independent team coordinator with meetingfacilitation skills, a knowledge of NEPA and Forest Service contracting

procedures, and without a history of being affiliated with one discipline at PSW

was an essential position. The science team also considered that a full-time sale

administrator during the harvest period was essential to ensure that the

prescribed vegetation treatments would be applied with accuracy and

uniformity.

In spite of criticism that the low structural diversity treatment was an obsolete

management practice, the science team insisted on selecting it as an extreme

treatment to create strong contrasts that should elicit significant responses.

Combining treatments in a factorial way to examine all possible interactions was

considered important, as well.

The interdisciplinary study on the Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest is

designed, in part, to restore late seral stands to conditions perceived as common

before differential cutting of pine and fire exclusion in the eastside pine type. We

are attempting within a few years to reverse processes that took decades to

develop. Whether or not we are successful in sustaining uneven-aged ponderosa

pine stands, our interdisciplinary study should provide insights into how

eastside pine ecosystems have been altered by the loss of late seral structures.

How To Get Involved

New team members are always welcome. Because treatments are largely in

place, more university faculty are expressing interest in BMEF and the

experimental units for graduate student studies. Within the past year the team

has received proposals from graduate students in entomology and ornithology.
42 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

For those interested in participating, a written research proposal should be

submitted to: Blacks Mountain Interdisciplinary Team Coordinator, Silviculture

Laboratory, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 2400 Washington Ave., Redding,

CA 96001. The coordinator will circulate the proposal among team members for

information and critique and schedule its presentation at the next team meeting

for a formal decision.

References

Alexander, Earl B. 1994. Ecological unit inventory. Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest,

California (revised). Unpublished report on file at the Pacific Southwest Research Station,

USDA Forest Service, Redding, California.

Brown, James K. 1974. Handbook for inventoring downed woody material. Gen. Tech. Rep.

INT-16. Ft. Collins, CO: Intermountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service; 24 p.

Carpenter, S. R.; Chisholm, S. W.; Krebs, C. J.; Schindler, D. W.; Wright, R. F. 1995. Ecosystem

experiments. Science 269: 324-327.

Del Terra, Inc. 1996. Black’s Mountain Experimental Forest 1996 grid re-establishment, Pacific

Southwest Research Station, Lassen County. Unpublished report on file at the Pacific Southwest

Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Redding, California.

Del Terra, Inc. 1997. Black’s Mountain Experimental Forest remonumentation of grid points in

units 42, 44, 45 and 47 October 1997. Unpublished report on file at the Pacific Southwest

Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Redding, California.

Del Terra, Inc. 1999. Black’s Mountain Experimental Forest remonumentation of grid points in

units 40, 46, 48 and 49 June 1999. Unpublished report on file at the Pacific Southwest Research

Station, USDA Forest Service, Redding, California.

Dolph, K. Leroy; Mori, Sylvia R.; Oliver, William W. 1995. Long-term response of old-growth

stands to varying levels of partial cutting in the eastside pine type. Western Journal of Applied

Forestry 10(3): 101-108.

Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC; Society

of American Foresters; 148 p.

Hallin, William E. 1959. The application of unit area control in the management of ponderosaJeffrey pine at Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest. Washington, DC: Technical Bulletin 1191;

USDA Forest Service; 96 p.

Hartsough, Bruce. 1998. Productivity and cost of harvesting to maintain high structural diversity,

and resulting damage to residual trees. Cooperative Agreement USDA-PSW-95-0028CA.

Unpublished report on file at the Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service,

Redding, California.

Hasel, A. A. 1938. Plan for methods-of-cutting study, Blacks Mountain sustained yield project.

Unpublished report on file at the Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service,

Redding, California.

Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA:

University of California; 1400 p.

Larsen, Michael J.; Harvey, Alan E.; Powers, Robert; Jurgensen, Martin F. 1996. A new species of

Botryobasidium (Corticiaceae, Aphyllophorales) inhabiting the interiors of brown rotted logs

of ponderosa pine. Mycotaxon LX: 429-432.

Laudenslayer, William F.; Grenfell, William E., Jr.; Zeiner, David C. 1991. A checklist of the

amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of California. California Fish and Game 77(3): 109-

141.

McKeever, Sturgis. 1961. Relative populations of small mammals in three forest types of

northeastern California. Ecology 42(2): 399-402.

National Research Council. 1990. Forestry research—a mandate for change. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press; 84 p.

Philpott, Wendy; Petersen, Christine. 1995. An initial sampling of bat fauna within the Blacks

Mountain Experimental Forest, Lassen National Forest, Shasta County, California.

Unpublished report on file at the Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service,

Redding, California.

Robertson, F. Dale. 1992. Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1992 June 16.

Statements to the Subcommittee on Forests, Family Farms, and Energy, Committee on

Agriculture, United States House of Representatives.

Salmon, K. A.; Bongberg, J. W. 1942. Logging high-risk trees to control insects in the pine stands of

northeastern California. Journal of Forestry 40(7): 533-539.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 43

Thomas, Jack Ward; Anderson, Ralph G.; Maser, Chris; Bull, Evelyn L. 1979. Snags. In: Thomas, Jack

Ward, technical coordinator. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: The Blue Mountains of

Oregon and Washington. Agric. Handb. 553. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service; 60-77.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Ecological unit inventory. In: Ecological classification and resource

handbook, FSH 2090.11. Washington, DC: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 7 p.

Vestra Resources Inc. 1997. Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest GIS and research database

design. Unpublished report on file at the Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest

Service, Redding, California.
44 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Appendix A—Treatment Descriptions

I. Overall Objectives

A. Compare the responses of a variety of forest attributes in twelve 250-

acre treatment areas to the following items:

1. The creation of two distinct forest structures: high vertical

structural diversity, and low vertical structural diversity.

2. The disturbances of grazing compared to no grazing, and burning

compared to no burning.

B. Maintain the integrity of 10 acres in each of two contrasting 1930’s

treatment areas (control and heavy Forest Service Method-of-Cutting

plots) in the plots designated for high structural diversity treatments

(plots 38, 41, 42, and 47).

II. Treatments

A. Harvest treatment: Descriptions for each treatment are described in

full and contain the following:

1. Objectives of and complete strategy for each treatment, including

opening, snag, and dense clump criteria; slash treatment methods;

regeneration and thinning methods and timing.

2. Objectives for each tree layer (high structural diversity, only).

B. Prescribed fire treatment: Each of the twelve treatment plots will be

split into “burn” and “no burn” fire treatments. Initially, the fire

treatments were to be initiated with a three-stage fire re-introduction, to

facilitate retention of the large, old trees on the “burn” half of the

treatment plots. On September 30, 1996 the Pacific Southwest Research

Station and Lassen National Forest personnel met to evaluate the effects

of the timber harvest treatments and revise the prescribed fire treatment.

The results of some tests to determine the best method and timing of fire

re-introduction to retain the large, old trees and an assessment of the

slash left from the timber harvest treatments necessitated a revision of

the fire re-introduction plan.

1. Optimally, fire will be re-introduced in the fall after the completion

of timber harvest in each replication. Fire lines will be constructed

anytime after harvest activities and prior to ignition. Use of power

equipment to establish the line will be permissible. As timber harvesting

will be completed in the first replication in the fall of 1996, fire will be reintroduced in the fall of 1997. Retention of all standing snags will be

encouraged by constructing a handline around each snag before fire reintroduction in the fall.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 45

2. If the fall burning window is too narrow to allow completion of fire

re-introduction for an entire replication in the same season, then the

entire replication must be burned the next fall.

C. Grazing treatment: Conducted on three of the six high diversity plots

and three of the six low diversity plots.

1. The grazing treatment will alternate annually between early and

late season grazing.

2. The six treatment plots not grazed will be fenced to exclude cattle.

Fences will consist of 3 strands of barbed wire and 1 strand of smooth

wire on the bottom. Fence posts will be metal.

3. Grazed plots will be fenced after harvest treatment, but BEFORE

the burning treatment.

III. Treatment Prescriptions

A. High structural diversity: The objective is to create and/or maintain

two or more tree layers throughout the six high structural diversity

treatment areas, while meeting snag, dense clump, opening criteria and

slash methods.

1. Snag criteria: Retain all existing snags and tally by the following

designations: hard versus soft, species, and stem diameter ranges: > 24

inches dbh, 15 inches – 24 inches dbh, and < 15 inches dbh.

2. Dense clump criteria: Maintain 10 to 15 percent of the area in

unthinned dense clumps of Layer 3 and 4 trees. These clumps should

have minimal leader growth and crown differentiation (most stagnate).

The maximum size of a dense clump is usually 2 acres, and minimum

size is 0.25 acre.

3. Opening criteria: Create and/or maintain 10 to 15 percent of the

area in openings no less than 0.25 acre and no more than 2 acres in size,

with a minimum dimension of 100 feet.

4. Slash criteria: Cut down all damaged trees. Harvest created slash

will be treated in the burn split by the re-introduction of fire. Harvest

created slash will not be treated in the unburned split, unless site

preparation (handpiling slash and burning handpiles) is required for

planting.

5. Tree layer objectives:

a. Maintain as many Layer 1a pine for a 50-year period as possible by

providing adequate survival space for each, without reducing the

number of these or Layer 1b pine trees by more than 10 percent.

Remove all Layer 1 fir and cedar and Layer 2 through Layer 4 trees

within twice the dripline or 33 feet (whichever is greater) of any

Layer 1a and 1b pine trees, except retain one replacement tree for

each Layer 1a pine that meets leave tree criteria. Priority for this

replacement tree is pine Layers 1b, 2, and 3.
46 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

b. Reduce the probability of insect-caused mortality for Layer 1a

and Layer 1b pine trees. Mark any “High and Very High Risk”

Layer 1a and Layer 1b trees (using Salmon and Bongberg [1942]

Risk Rating) that have < 25 percent Live Crown Ratio and are

within 20 feet of any other Layer 1a or lb trees that are NOT “High

and Very High Risk.”

If all Layer 1a and 1b trees within 20 feet of each other are “High

and/or Very High Risk,” do NOT exceed 10 percent removal in

any single aggregation of these trees. Remove only the worst of

the worst. Do NOT designate trees for removal > 36 inch dbh.

Retain remaining “High and/or Very High Risk” trees for

development of future snags.

Evaluate snag status in 10 years and develop snag objectives for

the remaining 40 years of the study.

c. Reduce the probability of insect caused mortality for Layer 1 fir

trees and increase the proportion of pine snags created during the

next decade.

Remove any white fir that meets any one of the following criteria

(outlined in the Eagle Lake Ranger District white fir salvage

marking guidelines):

• Pitch streamers visible on three-fourths of the bole

circumference.

• Bark beetle frass visible on three-fourths of the bole

circumference.

• The top 10 percent or more of the crown has begun to fade

(from green to yellow or brown).

d. Encourage Layer 2 and 3 trees to assume Layer 1 tree

characteristics between 50 and 100 years from now. Using leave

tree criteria, thin from below to create adequate growing space for

20 years. Adequate growing space is an area that provides a

minimum of 10 ft and a maximum of 15 ft between crowns of

Layer 2 trees and approximately 15 ft between boles of Layer 3

trees.

6. Regeneration and thinning strategy:

• If opening percentage (15 percent) or opening size (2 acres) is

exceeded, evaluate for planting.

• If less than 15 percent of each treatment area is in openings

less than 2 acres in size, do nothing.

• If more than 15 percent of each treatment area is in openings,

or if more than 10 percent is in openings greater than 2 acres

in size and with a minimum dimension of 100 ft, and if

commercial forest land (capable of growing 20 ft3

/acre/year),

plant excess to meet opening criteria.

• If more than 15 percent of each burned split or 5 percent of

each unburned split requires planting, proceed with the

following:

- Prepare site for planting by handpiling slash and burning

handpiles, and scalping organic matter.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 47

- Plant 90 percent 1-0 containerized ponderosa pine, 10

percent 1-0 containerized Jeffrey pine at the rate of 300

trees per acre or 12 x 12 ft spacing.

- Evaluate for precommercial thinning at 20 years.

- Thin if space between crowns is less than 5 ft. Create a

minimum space between crowns of 5 ft and maximum

space between crowns of 10 ft.

- Evaluate for commercial thinning at 40 and 60 years.

- Thin if space between crowns is less than 10 ft. Create a

minimum space between crowns of 10 ft and a maximum

space between crowns of 15 ft.

- If original planted opening was greater than 2 acres, thin

to 60 by 60 ft spacing and underplant with 90 percent 1-0

containerized ponderosa pine, 10 percent 1-0

containerized Jeffrey pine at the rate of 300 trees per acre,

or 12 x 12 ft spacing.

 “Special Case”: In the “Clearcut Method-of-Cutting plot” in unit 42 (plot

plus associated buffer totaling 30 acres), the following prescription

applies:

• Maintain 10 to 15 percent (3 to 4 acres) of the area in dense

clumps of Layer 4 trees. Maximum dense clump size is 2

acres.

• Thin 10 to 15 percent (3 to 4 acres) of the area in Layer 2 trees

to maximize growth of remaining trees for 20 years (use

previously described thinning guidelines). Maximum size for

these patches is 2 acres.

• Create two openings, 1.5 to 2 acres each, on commercial forest

land, to be planted. Priority locations for these openings are

areas of Layer 4, then Layer 3 trees. Plant with 90 percent 1-0

containerized ponderosa pine, 10 percent 1-0 containerized

Jeffrey pine at the rate of 300 trees per acre or 12 x 12 ft

spacing.

• In the remaining 60 to 70 percent of the area (18-20 acres), thin

from below to an average spacing of 60 ft. Use leave tree

criteria, giving preference to Layer 1a, 1b, 2, 3, then 4.

• Prepare site for planting by hand piling slash, burning

handpiles, and locally scalping organic matter.

• Underplant with 90 percent 1-0 containerized ponderosa pine,

10 percent 1-0 containerized Jeffrey pine at the rate of 300

trees per acre or 12 x 12 ft spacing.

• Evaluate for precommercial thinning at 20 years. Thin if space

between crowns is less than 5 ft. Create a minimum space

between crowns of 5 ft and a maximum space between crowns

of 10 ft.

• At 30 years, initiate the development of a third layer in about

50 percent of this area (9 to 10 acres). Thin from below to 40 by

40 ft spacing.

• Handpile and burn slash.

• Prepare site for planting by scalping the organic matter.

• Underplant with 90 percent 1-0 containerized ponderosa pine,

10 percent 1-0 containerized Jeffrey pine at the rate of 300

trees per acre or 12 x 12 ft spacing.
48 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

• Evaluate the remaining area for commercial thinning at 40

years. Thin if space between crowns is less than 10 ft. Create a

minimum space between crowns of 10 ft and a maximum

space between crowns of 15 ft.

B. Low Structural Diversity: The objectives are to simplify the forest

tree structure, maximize tree growth for a 20 year period, and strive

toward continuous forest cover, while meeting snag, slash, and opening

criteria.

Remove all Layer 1, 1a and 1b trees, except those needed for recruitment

to meet snag criteria. Thin all remaining tree layers from below,

including doghair clumps. Utilize the desirable leave tree characteristics

and spacing guidelines when selecting trees to be left. Maximize the

removal and utilization of biomass.

1. Snag criteria: Leave or create an average of 1.5 snags per acre.

• Favor snags > 23 inches dbh.

• Favor pine, cedar, then fir snags.

• Favor hard snags over soft snags.

• Remove excess snags that are feasible to remove.

If snag criteria cannot be met over 20-acre parcels, designate recruitment

trees:

• Favor trees > 23 inches dbh.

• Favor pine, cedar, then fir snags.

• Favor low value trees (i.e., cull).

• Wait 5 years after harvest activities before creating snags

from these recruitment trees.

2. Slash criteria: Utilize (biomass/chips) tops and limbs resulting from

thinning Layers 2 to 4 trees. Maintain existing down logs. Cut down all

damaged trees. Handpile (in unburned split only) and burn slash where

needed to prepare the site for planting (see opening criteria).

We estimate 10 percent of unburned split will require site preparation

and planting.

3. Opening criteria: Minimize the number and size of openings by

sacrificing spacing where necessary. An opening is at least 2 acres with a

minimum dimension of 100 ft and contains no more than 50 trees per

acre. If openings are created, especially after fire re-introduction, fall,

limb, buck, and handpile the remaining trees. Burn the handpiles. We

estimate that 30 percent of the burn split, and 15 percent of the unburned

split will be openings.

4. Regeneration and thinning strategy:

• Prepare the openings for planting by scalping organic matter.

• Plant 90 percent 1-0 containerized ponderosa pine and 10

percent 1-0 Jeffrey pine at the rate of 300 trees per acre or 12 x

12 ft spacing. Most openings will occur in the burn split

where the number of Layer 1 trees removed exceeds 15 trees

per acre, because there are few Layer 2 to 4 trees in these

areas, and the large limbs and crowns of the Layer 1 trees will

damage the smaller trees when they are felled.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 49

• Evaluate for precommercial thinning at 20 years. Thin if space

between crowns is less than 5 ft. Create a minimum space

between crowns of 5 ft and a maximum space between crowns

of 10 ft.

• Evaluate for commercial thinning at 40 and 60 years. Thin if

space between crowns is less than 10 ft.

IV. Harvest Treatment Prescription and Implementation Guidelines

Definitions apply to both the high and low structural diversity

treatments:

A. Tree Definitions:

• Layer 1a (pine)—These trees are old, have very platey yellow/

cinnamon bark color, flattened tops, and are usually taller

than 80 ft.

• Layer 1b (pine)—These trees are younger than Layer 1a trees,

their platey bark is beginning to form, and their crowns are

more full and not so flat on top as 1a trees.

• Layer 1 (fir and cedar)—These trees are older than 175 years,

and are taller than 80 ft.

• Layer 2—The crowns of these trees are full, pointed, and the

live crown ratio is usually greater than 50 percent. The trees

range in height from 40 to 100 ft, and the pine bark is without

characteristic plates.

• Layer 3—These trees have less live crown ratio than Layer 2,

and they range in height from 20 to 60 ft.

• Layer 4—These trees are less than 20 ft tall, and they are

usually found in dense clumps.

B. Desirable Leave Tree Characteristics:

• Greater than 40 percent live crown ratio.

• Greater than 4 inches leader growth.

• Free of insects, disease, and mechanical damage.

• Species preference: pine, cedar, fir.

C. Spacing Guidelines:

• Layer 1b pine, Layer 1 fir and cedar, and all Layer 2 trees:

Usually,leave no less than 10 ft and no more than 15 ft

between crowns.

• Layers 3 and 4 trees: Leave about 15 ft between tree boles.

D. Soils Standards: Motorized equipment will not be operated off the

designated skid trails when the soil moisture is sufficient to permit a

sample from the wettest part of the 3 to 10 inch soil depth zone to be

molded by hand compression. If the compressed soil will hold its shape

(not shatter) when tossed up and down in the hand, it is too wet. Also, all

skidding operations will cease on designated skid trails when the

potential for puddling exists. Soil moisture sufficient to restrict

operations is likely before June 15 and after late September to October,

depending on amount of spring precipitation and when fall rains wet

the soil. Equipment exerting more than 6.5 psi will not be permitted to

operate off the designated skid trails at any time.
50 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Appendix B

 Memorandum of Understanding

between

PACIFIC SOUTHWEST RESEARCH STATION

FOREST SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

and

LASSEN NATIONAL FOREST

FOREST SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

for

The design, development, and implementation of interdisciplinary research, to

provide information regarding the effects of different management strategies on

biodiversity and sustainable productivity.

This MEMORANDUM, made and entered into the 30th day of October, 1992, by

and between the Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, hereinafter referred to as the Station, and the Lassen

National Forest, Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, hereinafter referred to as the Lassen Forest,

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the Station is responsible for and conducts a program of forest

research of use and value to land managers and dependent industries; and is

active in the development and dissemination of scientific information and

technology; and

WHEREAS, the Lassen Forest is responsible for the management of National

Forest Lands under its jurisdiction according to the policies and regulations of

the Forest Service, as specified in Federal Law; and

WHEREAS, the Station’s Forest and Wildland Research emphasis area includes

responsibilities for investigations of the impacts of both human induced and

natural disturbances on biodiversity and long-term productivity; and

WHEREAS, both parties have the common objective of promoting and facilitating

implementation of ecosystem research and management; and

WHEREAS, it is to the distinct advantage of both parties to create and expand the

cooperative partnership described in this Memorandum.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises, the parties hereto

agree as follows:

I. Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to establish the basis for a partnership of

people, organizations, and agencies with the common goal to implement the

intent and spirit of fully integrated forest ecosystem research and management.

In order to achieve this goal, it will be necessary to focus interest, activities, and

resources on the difficult and complex problem of understanding the

consequences of disturbances on forest attributes and processes. The primary

objective of this partnership will be to develop and implement a large-scale,
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 51

long-term interdisciplinary research project that will provide information

necessary to evaluate ecosystem management activities at a scale, both spatially

and temporally, heretofore not attempted.

II. Definition of the Problem and Background

The Forest Service is in a time of transition to a new conceptual basis for forest

land management, as is all public and private forestry.

There are many reasons for the Forest Service to make this change. High on the

list of reasons are the findings from recent research, which show the need to

understand and manage the wildlands for the ecological components and their

interactions.

The elements of this change in approach are outlined in the Forest Service’s

commitment to ecosystem management, which is reflected in the Forest Service

Chief’s June 4, 1992 memo and the Forest and Wildland Ecosystem Research

emphasis area in the Station’s Strategic Plan.

However the approach is described, it is clear that forest management will now

be judged on the degree to which the individual project will contribute to the

effects of other projects regarding biological diversity (including wildlife, plant,

and genetic) and sustained productivity at both stand and landscape levels.

Understanding ecosystem interactions and processes and projecting

consequences of disturbances is an extraordinary task. The task requires an

integration of data, science, practice, management experience, and art to a

degree—and on spatial and temporal scales—not before attempted. Integrated

information to correctly evaluate these consequences currently does not exist.

In order to implement research at spatial scales large enough to have a high

probability of detecting response differences of the many variables (especially

wildlife), a large land base is needed. This land base must include contiguous

areas of forest attributes associated with old-growth conditions, especially large

old trees. Although much of the Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest, located

on the Lassen Forest, has these attributes, the area is inadequate for this largescale research project.

III. It Is Agreed by the Parties That:

1. Initial partners to this cooperation are the Station and the Lassen Forest.

Additional partners will be sought, or welcomed, as appropriate to further the

combined objectives. Potential partners include, but are not limited to:

universities with particular skills and interests in the subject area, additional

National Forests, private industry, and State organizations.

2. A steering committee will be formed for the purpose of maintaining oversight

and providing coordination of efforts. One or more representative(s) of each

participating organization will serve on the steering committee. This committee

will meet at least annually to evaluate progress of the work, resolve difficulties,

identify new areas of cooperation and create a yearly work plan.

The committee will initially be composed of the Station Director, Lassen Forest

Supervisor, representatives of the Redding Silviculture Lab and the Eagle Lake

District Ranger. Additional members will be added, as deemed necessary by the

committee.
52 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Chairmanship of the committee will alternate, on an annual basis, between the Station

Director and the Lassen Forest Supervisor, unless otherwise determined by the committee.

Attachments to this Memorandum or separate Supplements to this Memorandum will be

developed by the steering committee for the allocation of resources, activities, laboratories,

buildings, office space, other facilities, and programs considered by the agreeing parties

to have mutual interest and benefit, and these agreements will be an integral part of this

Memorandum (see Attachment A).

3. The Lassen Forest agrees the Station will have administrative control of two separate

forest areas, outside Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest. This agreement shall be

binding for a period of ten years, at which time this agreement will be evaluated for

extension.

4. All parties to this Memorandum, including those who later join this partnership by

adding their signatures to this Memorandum, agree to actively contribute to the

development and promotion of the capacity to understand forest ecosystems at both

stand and landscape scales over time. The interests, responsibilities, and contributions of

each partner will be coordinated and guided by a steering committee created under this

Memorandum; and on the ground coordination will be ensured through the submission

of a Notice of Intention and Progress Reports.

5. No member of, or delegate to, Congress or Resident Commissioner shall be admitted to

any share or part of this Agreement, or to any benefit that may arise therefore; but this

provision shall not be construed to extend to this Agreement if made with a corporation

for its general benefit.

6. Nothing herein shall be considered as obligating the Forest Service to expend or as

involving the United States in any contract or other obligation for the future payment of

money in excess of appropriations authorized by law and administratively allocated for

this work.

7. This Memorandum may be amended at any time by written consent of the parties

hereto. Unless so terminated by written agreement of the parties, this Memorandum will

remain in force until September 30, 2002.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of

Understanding as of the date first written above.

PACIFIC SOUTHWEST RESEARCH STATION LASSEN NATIONAL FOREST

FOREST SERVICE PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

By /s/ Philip S. Aune By_/s/ Leonard Atencio

Name (for) BARBARA C. WEBER Name LEONARD ATENCIO

Title: Station Director Title: Forest Supervisor
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 53

Memorandum of Understanding

Attachment A

The Station will:

a. Develop the Treatment Descriptions

b. Develop the Silvicultural Prescriptions

c. Develop the Marking Guidelines

d. Draft a Project Initiation Letter and News Release for Public Involvement

e. Draft a Memorandum of Understanding, to include

Tentative Schedule

Protection Needs (fire, fuelwood)

Land Allocation Commitment for Satellite Plots

Discussion regarding activities adjacent to Satellite Plots

Grazing Scheme

Fencing/Maintenance

f. Participate in Public Involvement Meetings

g. Cooperate in the Analysis of Public Comments

h. Participate in Development of SAI Plan

I. Participate in Development of Special “C” provisions

j. Assist in Sale Administration

k. Responsible Official for PSW (Bill Oliver) will co-sign the FONSI/DN.

The Eagle Lake Ranger District will:

a. Implement the NEPA Process

Conduct/Oversee Field Surveys for Environmental Reports

Develop Environmental Resource Reports

Conduct Public Involvement

Analyze Public Comments

Draft Environmental Document

Sign the Decision Notice

b. Prepare the Timber Sales

Designate Timber

Prepare Maps

c. Develop the Appraisal and Contract

Prepare the Special “C” Clauses

Prepare the SAI Plan

d. Administer the Timber Sale Contract

e. Develop and Administer the Post Harvest Activities Contracts

f. Cooperate on Prescribed Fire

Develop Burn Plans

Assist during Implementation

g. Initiate cooperative agreements with Allotment Permittee

Facilitate implementation of grazing treatment

h. Responsible for Protection and Law Enforcement

I. Responsible Official for L.F. (Robert Andrews) will co-sign the FONSI/DN

Timeframes (Critical Path)

Collect Baseline Data Summer 1992 ≥ 1994

Wildlife, Vegetation

Field Identify Plot Boundaries Summer 1992
54 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Locate/Monument Permanent Plot Centers Summer 1992 ≥ 1994

Begin NEPA field work Summer 1993

Archeological Survey

Wildlife

Owl Survey

Browse Species and Use

Goshawk Survey

Sensitive Plant Survey

Silvicultural Prescriptions (Treatment Descriptions)

Develop Marking Guidelines Winter 1992

Develop cooperative grazing plan Summer 1993

Begin Public Involvement Spring > 1993

Write NEPA Reports Winter 1993

ARR

BE

CEA (Owl, Watershed)

Fuels Plan

Transportation Plan

Develop Sale Area Improvement Plan Spring 1994

Prepare Environmental Analysis Spring 1994

Prepare Timber Sales Summer 1994

Develop and get Approval of Special

“C” Provisions Fall 1994

Develop Appraisal and Contract Fall 1994

Sell Winter 1994

Treatment Implementation

First Replication (4 plots) - Harvest Summer 1996

Conduct Post Harvest Activities Summer 1997

Conduct Prescribed Fire Fall 1997

Install Grazing Fences Summer 1997

Collect Response Data Summer 1998

Second Replication - Harvest Summer 1997

Conduct Post Harvest Activities Summer 1998

Conduct Prescribed Fire Fall 1999
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 55

Install Grazing Fences Summer > 1998

Collect Response Data Summer 2000

Third Replication - Harvest Summer 1998

Conduct Post Harvest Activities Summer 1999

Conduct Prescribed Fire Fall 2000

Install Grazing Fences Summer > 1999

Collect Response Data Summer 2001

Supplement 1

to the

Memorandum of Understanding

between

PACIFIC SOUTHWEST RESEARCH STATION

FOREST SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

and

LASSEN NATIONAL FOREST

FOREST SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

WHEREAS, the parties hereto have executed a Memorandum of Understanding,

effective October 30, 1992, authorizing and providing for cooperation in the

design, development, and implementation of interdisciplinary research, to

provide information regarding the effects of different management strategies on

biodiversity and sustainable productivity; and

WHEREAS, the Memorandum provides that a Supplement be issued to describe

the conditions of resource allocation of mutual benefit and interest to both

parties, and

WHEREAS, the Lassen National Forest has received $99,000 for the Blacks

Mountain Research Project in Fiscal Year 1993,

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises, the parties hereto

agree as follows:

I. The Station Shall:

Coordinate the establishment of a ground based reference system in the treatment

plots and RNAs. The Station will cover all except $53,000 of the cost of

establishing this reference system.

Coordinate the development and completion of a soil inventory of the treatment

plots.

II. The Lassen National Forest Shall:

Contribute $53,000 toward the installation of the ground based reference system.

Contribute $10,000 toward the completion of the soil survey.
56 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Fund and complete all NEPA field work in FY93, as agreed in Attachment A of the

MOU.

I. It Is Mutually Agreed That:

The cost of the ground based reference system will be borne by both the Station and the

Lassen National Forest, as stated above

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Supplement 1, as of the

last date written below.

PACIFIC SOUTHWEST RESEARCH STATION LASSEN NATIONAL FOREST

FOREST SERVICE PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

By_/s/ Philip S. Aune By /s/ Leonard Atencio

Name (for) BARBARA C. WEBER Name LEONARD ATENCIO

Title: Station Director Title: Forest Supervisor

Date_____________________________
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 57

Appendix C—Tree Harvesting Operations

The Blacks Ecological Research Project Timber Sale (Contract No. 58-058668)

consisted of 2,904 acres contained within 12 cutting units. Six of the cutting units

were harvested to establish a high structural diversity stand, while the remaining

six cutting units were harvested to establish a low structural diversity stand. The

12 units were harvested over a 3-year period, with one block (two high structural

and two low structural) cut each year (Timber Sale Contract, CT6.316 Progress of

Logging). The total volume of the sale was 33,310 mbf (thousand board feet), in

which 12,757 mbf were sawlogs (trees with a dbh greater than or equal to 10

inches), 1,567 mbf were cull logs (dead trees with a dbh greater than or equal to

10 inches), and 132,032 green tons (18,986 mbf) of miscellaneous convertible

products (MCP). MCP are trees processed into chips that can be burned as a fuel

source during the production of electricity. MCP is also referred to as “biomass.”

MCP consists of trees with a dbh greater than or equal to 3 inches but less than 10

inches, their limbs and tops, plus the limbs and tops of trees with a dbh of 10

inches or greater but less than 16 inches (CT2.21 Utilization and Removal of

Included Products). MCP and small sawlogs (dbh greater than or equal to 10

inches but less than 16 inches) were cut and skidded before cutting and removing

the large sawlogs (dbh greater than or equal to 16 inches) by using mechanized

harvesting equipment (CT6.42 Tractor Skidding Requirements).

Miscellaneous Convertible Products (MCP)—Harvesting of the first replication

began on May 13, 1996. Skid road and landing locations were agreed upon before

any operations started in an area. Skid roads were required to be spaced no

closer than 150 feet from one another to minimize ground disturbance (CT6.42

Tractor Skidding Requirements). MCP was harvested with 3 Hydro-Ax 221

shears fitted with 28L tires to bring the ground pressure of the equipment down

to the 6.5 psi required by CT6.42 to operate off designated skid roads. Trees cut

by the shears were packed by the shears to or adjacent to the designated skid

roads and piled into doodles (bundles of small trees). Trees with a dbh from 3

inches to 10 inches were thinned according to operator selection based on criteria

stated in CT2.366 (Designation of Included Timber). A 10- to15-foot crown

spacing was the desired distance between trees left after thinning. Doodles were

skidded with both a D5 Caterpillar fitted with 32-inch wide tracks to meet the

low ground pressure requirements and a Caterpillar 528 rubber tire skidder that

did not meet the low ground pressure requirements. The D5 Caterpillar would

skid the doodles that were piled off of the skid roads onto the skid roads where

the Caterpillar 528, which was confined to operating only on designated skid

roads, would then skid the doodles to the established landing. A Trelan 21 L

chipper was used to chip the doodles. Production of 275 tons per day was

achieved. This is about 11 to 12 van loads per day. Any refuse left on the landing

after chipping was spread on the skid roads associated with that landing.

Small Sawlogs—The small sawlog (10- to 16-inches dbh) component of the stand

was harvested after all the small biomass trees (3- to 10-inches dbh) were thinned

and removed. Trees as large as 16 inches dbh were required to be skidded as

whole trees (CT6.414). A Hydro-Ax 711E shear equipped with a circular sawhead

was used to harvest the small sawlogs (fig. 11). The Hydro-Ax 711E shear and a

Caterpillar 518 rubber tired skidder were fitted with 30.5L tires to meet the low

ground pressure requirements (CT6.42) to allow operation off the designated

skid roads. These equipment delivered the trees to the designated skid roads. A

Timberjack 38A rubber tire skidder delivered the trees to the landing. The

Timberjack skidder was confined to operating only on the designated skid roads

because it did not meet the low ground pressure requirements. A CTR log

processer delimbed the trees and cut them into log lengths at the landing. Limbs
58 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

and tops were piled and stored. After the small log operation was completed on

a landing, the Trelan 21L chipper returned to the landing to chip the limbs and

tops. Processed logs were loaded on trucks with the use of a shovel loader.

Shovel loaders were used to minimize the landing size needed for the operation.

Production of 40 mbf per day was achieved during this phase of the operation.

Large Sawlogs and Cull Logs—The large sawtimber and cull logs (dbh equal to

or greater than 16 inches) followed the operations for the harvest of MCP (small

trees 3- to 10-inches dbh) and small sawlogs (10- to 16-inches dbh) as required by

the contract (CT6.42). The operator was required to cut the large trees in two or

more operations to prevent undue damage to the residual stand (CT6.42). Also,

the trees were felled in specified directions for the same reason (CT6.411

Directional Felling). Six fallers were usually employed to fall the large timber.

Fallers were required to limb and buck trees before they were skidded (CT6.41

Felling and Bucking, CT6.414 Limbing). Three 528 Caterpillar rubber tire skidders

were used to remove the logs from the stand. All skidding equipment was

confined to the designated skid roads for this phase of the harvest operations.

Logs had to be end-lined to the skid roads before they could be skidded (CT6.42

Tractor Skidding Requirements). Logs were once again loaded onto trucks with

the use of a shovel loader. Production of 150 mbf per day was achieved during

this phase of the operation.

Post-Harvest Operations—Slash left on the landing after all phases of the harvest

operations were completed was machine piled and later burned (CT6.7 Slash

Treatment). All skid roads were crossed-ditched after use for erosion control

(BT6.64). Landings were scarified to a 6-inch depth after use was completed

(CT6.603 Soil Scarification). During all phases of the harvest operation, the

stump surface of all cut trees 4 inches or larger in stump diameter were treated

with a borate compound for the prevention of annosus root disease (CT6.415

Treatment of Stumps). Slash in the stand from the large sawlogs and damaged

small trees marked by the Sale Administrator were required to be lopped to an

18-inch depth (CT6.7 Slash Treatment).

Productivity and Cost of Harvesting and Resulting Damage to Residual

Trees—A harvesting study was conducted on the High Pine Block I that included

two high diversity and two low diversity units in stands with a high proportion

of pine. The study objectives were to quantify production rates and costs for the

stump-to-mill activities for both the high and low structural diversity treatments,

and to determine the damage to residual trees in each harvesting stage and

activity associated with the two treatments (Hartsough 1998).

The low diversity treatment generated considerable revenue (about $2,600

per acre with the assumed product values) because of the large volume of larger

sawlogs removed. The high diversity treatment resulted in a net loss per acre,

because of the small volume of sawlogs, higher costs and lower values because of

the small size of the sawlog trees, and the negative net value of the biomass.

Productivity relationships were derived from time-motion study data so that

incremental costs by diameter class could be estimated. The stump-to-mill cost

for the smallest trees harvested—at more that $60 per bone dry ton (BDT)—far

exceeded the assumed delivered value of $20 per BDT. Leaving these 4-inch dbh

trees unharvested would reduce the net loss per acre by almost half, but would

result in about 3 BDT per acre of additional material on site.

The study of harvesting damage found that 17 percent of the sampled leave

trees suffered damage in the high structural diversity treatment. In the low

structural diversity treatment 23 percent of the leave trees suffered damage.
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 59

Undamaged leave trees averaged 85 and 73 trees per acre for the high and low

diversity treatments, respectively. Leave tree size had the biggest impact on

damage; higher percentages of smaller trees were damaged than were larger

trees. Felling damage frequency increased with the level of removals as well.

Relationships were developed to estimate the probabilities of damage for a given

size of tree during each harvesting stage and activity. These can be applied to a

leave tree stand table to estimate roughly how many trees will survive

undamaged, or to estimate how many trees must be initially selected as leave

trees so that a desired number will remain undamaged after all harvesting

activities. For example, with the assumed average conditions for the high

diversity treatment, about 120 initial leave trees would result in 100 final leave

trees per acre without major damage. The low diversity treatment is much

rougher on leave trees because more volume is removed and the leave trees are

smaller. The damage relationships indicate that about 180 initial leave trees are

needed to give a final stand density of 100 undamaged trees per acre.
60 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Appendix D—Plant and Animal Species

Plant Species, Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest, 1994 to present.

Species Code1 Vernacular Name Scientific Name

ABCO White fir Abies concolor

ACMI Common yarrow Achillea millefolium

ACOC Needlegrass Achnatherum occidentalis

AGGL Agoseris Agoseris glauca

AGHE Woodland agoseris Agoseris heterophylla

AGRE Spearleaf mountain dandelion Agoseris retrorsa

AGUR Nettle-leaved horsemint Agastache urticifolia

ALCA Sierra onion Allium campanulatum

AMAL Pacific serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia (A. utahensis?)

ANDI Low pussytoes Antennaria dimorpha

ANGE Pearly everlasting Antennaria geyeri

ANLU Silvery-brown pussytoes Antennaria luzuloides

ANRO Rosy everlasting Antennaria rosea

APAN Bitter dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium

ARDI Spreading rock cress Arabis divaricarpa

ARLA Arnica Arnica latifolia

ARPA Greenleaf manzanita Arctostaphylos patula

ARSE Sandwort Arenaria serphyllifolia

ARTR Basin big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata

ASIN Susanville milkvetch Astragalus inversus

ASOC Aster Aster occidentalis

ASPU Pursh’s locoweed Astragalus purshii

ASWH Locoweed Astragalus whitneyi

BALS Balsamroot Balsamorhiza sp.

BASA Arrowleaf balsamroot Balsamorhiza sagittata

BERE Oregon-grape Berberis repens

BRIN Smooth brome Bromus inermis

BRMA Mountain brome Bromus marginatus

BRRA Field mustard Brassica rapa

BRTE Cheat grass Bromus tectorum

CAAP Applegate’s paintbrush Castilleja applegatei

CAFI Short-grass sedge Carex filifolia var. erostrata

CANE Sedge Carex nebrascensis

CARO Ross’ sedge Carex rossii

CASE Bush chinquapin Castanopsis sempervirens

CASP Sedge Carex sp.

CELE Curlleaf mountain mahogany Cercocarpus ledifolius

CEN Star-thistle Centaurea sp. (exotic)

CEPR Squaw carpet Ceanothus prostratus

CEVE Snowbrush Ceanothus velutinus

CHSP Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus sp.

CHUM Prince’s pine Chimaphila umbellata

CHVI Yellow rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus

CIAN Anderson thistle Cirsium andersonii

CIVU Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare (exotic)

CLPE Miner’s lettuce Clatonia perfoliata

CLRH Forest clarkia Clarkia rhomboidea

COAR Bindweed Convolvulus arvensis

COCO California hazel Corylus cornuta var. californica

COGR Grand collomia Collomia grandiflora
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 61

COMP Composite family

(including Asters, etc.)

COPA Maiden blue-eyed Mary Collinsia parviflora

COTI Tinctureplant Collinsia tinctoria

CRAT Slender hawksbeard Crepis atribarba

CROC Western hawksbeard Crepis occidentalis

CRSP Crypthantha Crypthantha sp.

ELEL Squirrel tail Elymus elymoides

EPHA Glandular willowherb Epilobium halleanum

EPMI Slender annual fireweed Epilobium minutum

ERBL Goldenbush Ericameria bloomeri

ERIG Fleabane daisy Erigeron bloomerii var. bloomeri

ERLA Common woollysunflower Eriophyllum lanatum

ERNU Naked buckwheat Eriogonum nudum

ERUM Sulfur buckwheat Eriogonum umbellatum

FEID Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis

FRAT Spotted mountain bell Fritillaria atropurpurea

FRPU Yellow fritillary Fritillaria pudica

GANU Nuttall’s groundsmoke Gayophytum nuttallii

GASP Gayophytum Gayophytum sp.

GECI Prairie smoke Geum ciliatum

GETR Old man’s whiskers Geum triflorum

GRAS unidentified grass

HIAL Whiteflower hawkweed Hieracium albiflorum

HYCA Wollen-breeches Hydrophyllum capitatum

IPAG Scarlet gilia Ipomopsis aggregata

KEGA Kelloggia Kelloggia galioides

KOMA Junegrass Koeleria macrantha

LAGL White layia Layia glandulosa

LICA Stoneseed Lithospermum californicum

LIDE Incense-cedar Libocedrus decurrens

LIHA Harkenss linanthus Linanthus harknessii

LOPU Spanish clover Lotus purshianus

LOSP Lomatium Lomatium sp.

LUAR Spurred lupine Lupinus argenteus

LUBR Brewer’s lupine Lupinus breweri

LULE Lupine Lupinus leucophyllus

LUSP Lupine Lupinus sp.

MEDI Nodding microseris Microseris nutans

MINU Brittle sandwart Minuartia nuttallii

MITO Monkey flower Mimulus torreyi

MOOD Coyote mint Monardella odaritissima

MOPE Miner’s lettuce Montia perfoliata

MOSS moss

NESP Meadow nemophila Nemophila spatulata

OSCH Mountain sweetcicely Osmorhiza chilensis

PABR Western peony Paeonia brownii

PEDE Indian warrior Pedicularis densiflora

PEGR Slender penstemon Penstemon gracilentus

PELA Gay penstemon Penstemon laetus

PENS Penstemon sp. Penstemon sp.

PESE Pine lousewort Pedicularis semibarbata

PESP Showy penstemon Penstemon speciosus

PHCO Phlox Phlox condensata

PHDI Spreading phlox Phlox diffusa

PHGR Phlox Phlox gracilis
62 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

PHLI Phacelia Phacelia linearis

PHMU Changeable phacelia Phacelia mutabilis

PODO Knotweed Polygonum douglasii

PIJE Jeffrey pine Pinus jeffreyi

PIPO Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa

PLNO Popcornflower Plagiobothrys nothofulvus

PODR Drummond’s cinquefoil Potentilla drummondii

POGR Cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis

POMI Cinquefoil Potentillia millefolia

POPO Knotweed Polygonum polygaloides

POPR Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis

POSE Bluegrass Poa secunda

POSP Bluegrass Poa sp.

PREM Bitter cherry Prunus emarginata

PRSU Sierra plum Prunus subcordata

PRVI Chokecherry Prunus virginiana

PTAN Pinedrops Pterospora andromedea

PUTR Antelope bitterbrush Purshia tridentata

PYHI Pyrrocoma Pyrrocoma hirta

PYMI Lesser wintergreen Pyrola minor

PYPI White-veined wintergreen Pyrola picta

RICE Wax current Ribes cereum

RIRO Sierra gooseberry Ribes roezlii

ROWO Interior rose Rosa woodsii

RUAC Sheep sorrell Rumex acetosella

SCCA California skullcap Scuetelloria californica

SEAR California butterweed Senecio aronicoides

SEIN Tower butterweed Senecio integerrimus

SEOR Spike-moss Selaginella oregana

SIHY Squirreltail Sitanion hystrix

SOCA Meadow goldenrod Solidago canadensis ssp. elongata

SOOL Common sow thistle Sonchus oleraceus

STLA Stephen’s lettuce Stephanomeria lactucina

STOC Needlegrass Stipa occidentalis

SYMO Creeping snowberry Symphoricarpos mollis

TRLO Summer clover Trifolium longipes

UNK unknown

VIPU Mountain violet Viola purpurea

WYMO Mountain mule ears Wyethia mollis

XXXX Nothing

ZIVE Death camas Zigadenus venenosus

1

Hickman (1993)
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 63

Terrestrial Vertebrates, Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest, 1988-

1995.1

Order

Vernacular name Scientific name

Class: Amphibia (Amphibians)

Salientia

(Frogs and toads)

Great Basin spadefoot Scaphiopus intermontanus

Western toad Bufo boreas

Pacific treefrog Hyla (Pseudacris) regilla

Class: Reptilia (Reptiles)

Squamata

(Lizards and Snakes)

Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis

Sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus

Western terrestrial garter snake Thamnophis (Nerodia) elegans

Class: Avies (Birds)

Anseriformes

(Ducks, and relatives)

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Falconiformes

(Vultures, hawks, and falcons)

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Galliformes

(Pheasants, and relatives)

Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus

Columbiformes

(Pigeons and doves)

Band-tailed pigeon Columba fasciata

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura

Strigiformes

(Owls)

Northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma

Spotted owl Strix occidentalis

Caprimulgiformes

(Goatsuckers and relatives)

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Apodiformes

(Swifts and hummingbirds)

Calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope
64 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Piciformes

(Woodpeckers and relatives)

Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis

Red-breasted sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber

Williamson’s sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus

White-headed woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus

Black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus

Passeriformes

(Perching birds)

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis

Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus

Hammond’s flycatcher Empidonax hammondii

Dusky flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri

Gray flycatcher Empidonax wrightii

Pacific-slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis

Horned lark Eremophila alpestris

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica

Steller’s jay Cyanocitta stelleri

Common raven Corvus corax

Mountain chickadee Parus gambeli

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

Pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea

Brown creeper Certhia americana

Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula

Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides

Townsend’s solitaire Myadestes townsendi

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus

American robin Turdus migratorius

Varied thrush Ixoreus naevius

Solitary vireo Vireo solitarius

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus

Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata

Black-throated Gray warbler Dendroica nigrescens

Townsend’s warbler Dendroica townsendi

Hermit warbler Dendroica occidentalis

MacGillivray’s warbler Oporornis tolmiei

Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla

Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana

Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus

Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena

Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus

Rufous-sided towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina

Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca

Golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis
USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000. 65

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater

Northern oriole Icterus galbula

Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus

Cassin’s finch Carpodacus cassinii

Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra

Pine siskin Carduelis pinus

Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria

Evening grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

Class: Mammalia (Mammals)

Insectivora

(Insectivores)

Trowbridge’s shrew Sorex trowbridgii

Broad-footed mole Scapanus latimanus

Lagomorpha

(Rabbits, hares, and pikas)

Nuttall’s (mountain) cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus

Black-tailed (hare) jackrabbit Lepus californicus

Rodentia

(Squirrels, rats, mice, and relatives)

Yellow-pine chipmunk Tamias amoenus

Townsend’s chipmunk (shadow) Tamias townsendii

Lodgepole chipmunk Tamias speciosus

Belding’s ground squirrel Spermophilus beldingi

California ground squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi

Golden-mantled ground squirrel Spermophilus lateralis

Western gray squirrel Sciurus griseus

Douglas’ squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii

Northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus

 Mountain pocket gopher Thomomys monticola

 Great Basin pocket mouse Perognathus parvus

Dark kangaroo mouse Microdipodops megacephalus

Cricetidae

(Native mice, rats, and voles)

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes

Bushy-tailed woodrat Neotoma cinerea

Western Red-backed vole Clethrionomys californicus

Montane vole Microtus montanus

Long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus

Carnivora

(Carnivores)

Coyote Canis latrans

Black bear Ursus americanus

Badger Taxidea taxus

Bobcat Felis rufus
66 USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PSW-GTR-179. 2000.

Artiodactyla

(Even-toed ungulates)

Wapiti or elk Cervus elaphus

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

Pronghorn Antilocapra americana

1

Laudenslayer and others (1991).