United States Department of Agriculture

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE

The Demonstration of Ecosystem 

Management Options (DEMO) Study, 

a Long-Term Experiment in VariableRetention Harvests: Rationale, 

Experimental and Sampling Designs, 

Treatment Implementation, Response 

Variables, and Data Accessibility 

Keith B. Aubry and Charles B. Halpern

Forest 

Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-978

January

2020
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and 

institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating 

based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income 

derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior 

civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases 

apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should 

contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, 

program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html 

and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the 

information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. 

Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Authors

Keith B. Aubry is an emeritus scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3625 

93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512; Charles B. Halpern is a research professor, 

University of Washington, College of the Environment, School of Environmental 

and Forest Sciences, Seattle, WA 98195.
i

Abstract

Aubry, Keith B.; Halpern, Charles B. 2020. The Demonstration of Ecosystem 

Management Options (DEMO) Study, a long-term experiment in variableretention harvests: rationale, experimental and sampling designs, treatment 

implementation, response variables, and data accessibility. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-978. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 136 p.

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study is an 

operational-scale experiment in variable-retention harvests with six installations in 

western Washington and Oregon. Initiated in 1994, the experiment was designed 

to test key assumptions underlying standards and guidelines in the Northwest 

Forest Plan for regeneration harvests on matrix lands. The orthogonal portion 

of the six-treatment design (15 and 40 percent retention in both aggregated and 

dispersed patterns) is unique among large-scale variable-retention experiments, 

allowing for independent tests of responses to retention level and pattern and to 

their interaction. The DEMO Study is a multidisciplinary experiment designed 

to evaluate the dynamics of a diverse array of forest organisms (understory and 

overstory vegetation, wildlife, arthropods, and fungi), including their short-term 

responses to disturbance and longer term responses to changes in forest structure. 

However, maintaining financial support for the study over several decades has been 

challenging. Consequently, most studies were limited to the short term, although 

assessments of overstory structure and conifer regeneration extend to 18 to 19 years 

after treatment. This comprehensive reference document is designed to facilitate 

future research on the DEMO sites by providing information needed to relocate or 

reestablish the sampling grids, and to access existing data for comparative analyses 

or syntheses. It contains details on the study design, treatment histories, experimental sites, sampling infrastructure, response variables, methods and histories of 

sampling, and data and metadata archives.

Keywords: DEMO Study, long-term studies, multidisciplinary studies, Pacific 

Northwest, structural retention, variable-retention harvests.
ii

Preface

By the 1990s, forest managers and scientists in the Pacific Northwest recognized that the implementation of ecosystem management (i.e., managing forests 

to produce wood, maintain biodiversity, and provide ecosystem services) was 

hampered by a lack of knowledge about ecological responses to alternative silvicultural strategies. Widely acknowledged were that clearcutting as a means of 

regeneration harvest was detrimental to the ecological integrity of forests, and 

that new approaches were needed to achieve the goals of ecosystem management. 

Of particular interest were management strategies that involved the retention of 

forest structures (live trees and snags) during harvest—strategies that are now 

commonly known as “green-tree,” “structural,” or “variable-retention” harvests. In 

1993, Congress allocated $1.5 million to the Pacific Northwest Research Station to 

establish a regionwide experiment that addressed these information needs. These 

funds supported the development and implementation of the Demonstration of 

Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study, an operational-scale experiment 

designed to test the efficacy of different approaches to green-tree retention (varying 

the level or pattern of retained trees) on federal and state forest lands in Washington 

and Oregon. Subsequent federal funding supported a comprehensive assessment of 

pretreatment conditions (1994–1997), timely implementation of the harvest treatments (1997–1998), and posttreatment assessments of varying scope and duration 

(short term to nearly 2 decades after harvest). 

Many federal and academic researchers, graduate students, and biological technicians have contributed to the long-term productivity of the DEMO Study. More 

than 80 research publications have been produced (including journal articles, government reports, dissertations, and theses), encompassing a diversity of disciplines 

(see app. 1). DEMO research is frequently cited in the retention-forestry literature, 

and DEMO data have been used in global-scale reviews and meta-analyses of the 

benefits and tradeoffs of variable-retention harvests for biodiversity.

The DEMO Study owes much of its success and long-term productivity to an 

active partnership between researchers and managers. During each phase of the 

study (including development of the general study plan), agency and academic scientists worked closely with federal and state resource managers. This partnership 

enabled researchers to understand and appreciate the needs of forest managers and 

the constraints they face. In turn, it created a collaborative research environment 

that enabled managers to understand the need for a rigid experimental design 

that provided a strong basis for statistical inference, despite the implementation 

of treatments or posttreatment practices that departed from traditional ones. 

Because the experiment involved alternative approaches to timber harvest at a 

The Demonstration 

of Ecosystem 

Management Options 

(DEMO) Study is an 

operational-scale 

experiment designed 

to test the efficacy of 

different approaches to 

green-tree retention on 

federal and state forest 

lands in Washington 

and Oregon.
iii

time of heightened public concern over forest management practices, considerable 

effort was devoted to public outreach, including regular site visits. Collaboration 

and discussion between researchers and managers also facilitated the transfer 

of technical information. The DEMO Study exemplifies how a strong researchmanagement partnership can enhance the success and productivity of large-scale, 

long-term experiments. 
iv

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Contents

1 Introduction

5 Study Locations, Experimental Design, and Treatment Implementation

5 Study Locations

5 Experimental Design

11 Treatment Implementation: Yarding, Snag Creation, Slash Reduction, and 

Planting of Tree Seedlings

18 Sampling of Major Response Variables

18 Systematic Sampling Grids

18 Overstory and Understory Vegetation

20 Amphibians and Forest-Floor Small Mammals

25 Arboreal Rodents

25 Bats

26 Diurnal Forest Birds

26 Foliage-, Bark-, and Litter-Dwelling Arthropods

28 Ectomycorrhizal Fungi

29 Microclimate

30 Public Perceptions (Aesthetics)

31 The DEMO Study: Unique Opportunities for Research on 

Variable-Retention Harvests

31 Acknowledgments

32 List of Tree Species Identified in This Report

32 U.S. Equivalents

33 Literature Cited

41 Appendix 1: Publications, Dissertations, and Theses From the 

DEMO Study, 1996–2018 

41 History, Overview, and Synthesis

42 Disturbance and Microclimate

42 Overstory and Understory Vegetation

45 Amphibians, Forest-Floor Small Mammals, Arboreal Rodents, Bats, and 

Diurnal Forest Birds

48 Ectomycorrhizal Fungi

48 Foliage-, Bark-, and Litter-Dwelling Arthropods

49 Public Perceptions (Aesthetics)

51 Appendix 2: Locations and Navigational Aids to and Within Treatment 

Units at the Watson Falls Experimental Block in Oregon 

68 Appendix 3: Locations and Navigational Aids to and Within Treatment 

Units at the Dog Prairie Experimental Block in Oregon 

79 Appendix 4: Locations and Navigational Aids to and Within Treatment 

Units at the Butte Experimental Block in Washington 
v

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

90 Appendix 5: Locations and Navigational Aids to and Within Treatment 

Units at the Little White Salmon Experimental Block in Washington 

102 Appendix 6: Locations and Navigational Aids to and Within Treatment 

Units at the Paradise Hills Experimental Block in Washington

118 Appendix 7: Locations and Navigational Aids to and Within Treatment 

Units at the Capitol Forest Experimental Block in Washington 

128 Appendix 8: Locations of the Four Corner Grid Points in Each DEMO 

Treatment Unit (Albers WA-OR NAD83)

131 Appendix 9: Bearings (in Degrees) of Rows and Columns of the 

Systematic Grid in Each DEMO Treatment Unit

132 Appendix 10: Bearings (in Degrees) of Permanent Vegetation Transects 

in Each DEMO Treatment Unit 

133 Appendix 11: Descriptions of Vegetation Databases Archived in the 

Oregon State University Forest Science Data Bank

135 Appendix 12: Descriptions of Wildlife Databases Archived in the Oregon 

State University Forest Science Data Bank

135 Appendix 13: Descriptions of Arthropod Databases Archived in the 

Oregon State University Forest Science Data Bank

136 Appendix 14: Descriptions of Ectomycorrhizal Fungi Databases Archived 

in the Oregon State University Forest Science Data Bank

136 Appendix 15: Descriptions of Microclimate Databases Archived in the 

Oregon State University Forest Science Data Bank

1

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Introduction

During much of the 20th century, the perceived value of federal forests was to 

provide wood, water, grazing, recreation, and other commodities; little concern was 

expressed about the potential loss of ecological diversity from the harvest of oldgrowth forests (Franklin 1989). In recent decades, however, management practices 

on federal and state lands in western Washington and Oregon have been modified 

to sustain a broader array of forest values (e.g., USDA and USDI 1994, WDNR 

1997). These new strategies acknowledge the need to integrate elements of natural 

disturbance and successional processes in forests managed for both commodity and 

ecological values (e.g., Brooks and Grant 1992, O’Hara 1998, Swanson and Franklin 1992). A fundamental element of these management strategies is the retention of 

physical structures (e.g., large live trees, snags, and down wood) during harvest that 

are important in the functioning of intact forest ecosystems—a practice known as 

structural or variable retention (Beese et al. 2003; Fedrowitz et al. 2014; Franklin et 

al. 1997, 2002; Gustafsson et al. 2012). 

Two elements of forest structure are often manipulated to achieve the silvicultural, ecological, or aesthetic objectives of variable-retention harvests: level 

of retention (e.g., basal area or density) and the spatial pattern in which trees are 

retained (dispersed vs. aggregated) (Franklin et al. 1997). For example, greater 

levels of retention are expected to favor survival of taxa that are sensitive to 

disturbance or to increases in light and temperature; lower levels of retention are 

expected to favor colonization and growth of early-seral or regenerating tree species 

(Gustaffson et al. 2012, Rosenvald and Lõhmus 2008). Similarly, dispersed retention is intended to moderate the understory microclimate (Barg and Edmonds 1999, 

Drever and Lertzman 2003) and to provide a spatially distributed source of live and 

dead wood for wildlife, epiphytes, mycorrhizal symbionts, and saproxylic species 

(Cline et al. 2005, Lõhmus et al. 2006, Siira-Pietikäinen et al. 2003, Sullivan and 

Sullivan 2001, Tittler et al. 2001). However, aggregated retention (retention of intact 

patches of forest) may be needed to ensure survival of species that are sensitive to 

disturbance or elevated levels of light or temperature (Baker et al. 2015, Franklin et 

al. 2018)—the “lifeboating” function of aggregates (Franklin et al. 1997). Because 

it leaves larger, more distinctive, and persistent openings in the forest, aggregated 

retention may also be more effective at maintaining ecologically complex earlyseral habitat—the postdisturbance stage of natural forest development that has been 

reduced by intensive forest management (Kennedy and Spies 2004; Swanson et 

al. 2011, 2014). In their seminal paper on variable retention, Franklin et al. (1997) 

contrasted the broad range of hypothesized functions of dispersed and aggregated 

retention, including both short- and long-term objectives. 

Two elements of 

forest structure are 

often manipulated to 

achieve the objectives 

of variable-retention 

harvests: the level 

of retention and the 

spatial pattern in which 

trees are retained.
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

The retention of live (green) trees in harvest units is now an important component of forest management on federal lands in the Pacific Northwest, and it has 

become increasingly important in other temperate and boreal forest regions as well 

(Gustafsson et al. 2012, Lindenmayer et al. 2012a). Nevertheless, the ecological 

benefits or tradeoffs of varying the level or spatial pattern of retention during harvest are not fully understood. Species may differ in their responses to one or both 

elements of residual structure, or to their interaction. For example, trees retained in 

a dispersed setting may need to exceed a threshold density to effectively moderate 

understory microclimate. Similarly, undisturbed aggregates may need to be sufficiently large to resist wind damage or the edge effects that can compromise their 

lifeboating functions. Identifying these level-by-pattern interactions may be critical 

to balancing the multiple objectives of variable-retention harvests. 

In the mid-1990s, all resource management plans and timber harvest prescriptions on U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands within the 

range of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) were combined into a 

single comprehensive plan for ecosystem management—the Northwest Forest Plan 

(NWFP) (Tuchmann 1995, USDA and USDI 1994). Under this plan, the practice 

of clearcutting was eliminated; instead, on lands allocated to timber production 

(“matrix” lands), regeneration harvests must include partial retention of the overstory. Current retention standards and guidelines include the following: (1) retain 

live (green) trees in at least 15 percent of each harvest unit; (2) retain 70 percent of 

those trees in undisturbed aggregates of 0.2 to 1.0 ha (or larger), with the remainder 

dispersed or in small clumps (<0.2 ha); (3) retain the largest and oldest decadent 

or leaning trees (to the extent possible); (4) retain trees indefinitely; and (5) retain 

or create additional down wood and snags (USDA and USDI 1994). It is widely 

believed that retaining large live trees, snags, and down wood during harvest will 

maintain or facilitate recovery of key ecological functions within managed forests 

(e.g., Franklin et al. 1997, Perry et al. 1989). However, the standards and guidelines 

for retention in the NWFP (e.g., the 15 percent minimum) are not based on experiments designed to test their validity. Rather, they reflect the collective knowledge, 

experience, and professional judgments of natural resource scientists and land 

managers who have worked in this region.

To test these assumptions, an operational-scale experiment in variableretention harvests—the Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options 

(DEMO) Study—was initiated in 1994. Franklin et al. (1999) provided a historical 

perspective on the motivation and evolution of the experiment. The design includes 

six treatments, each implemented within a 13-ha area, replicated at six locations 

(blocks) in mature forests dominated by Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) in 
3

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

western Washington and Oregon (fig. 1) (Aubry et al. 1999). Treatments represent 

strong contrasts in both the level of retention (15 to 100 percent of original basal 

area) and the spatial pattern in which trees are retained (dispersed vs. aggregated). 

The orthogonal portion of the experimental design (15 and 40 percent retention in 

both aggregated and dispersed patterns) (fig. 1) is unique among variable-retention 

experiments, making it possible to assess the individual and interactive effects of 

level and pattern of retention. 

The response variables in DEMO address both ecological and silvicultural 

values, as well as public perceptions of the aesthetic qualities of resulting stand 

structures (Aubry et al. 1999). A diverse array of study organisms was chosen, 

including those critical to characterizing forest structure (live and dead trees) and 

those thought to be sensitive to retention level or pattern, including late-seral herbs 

and bryophytes, ectomycorrhizal fungi, foliage-dwelling arthropods, amphibians, 

forest-floor small mammals, arboreal rodents, and diurnal birds. Harvest treatments were implemented in 1997 and 1998, and initial posttreatment measurements 

were completed between 1998 and 2000. To capitalize on the unique opportunities 

afforded by this experiment, additional studies of understory microclimate and 

bark- and litter-dwelling arthropods were conducted in 2003 and 2004. Although 

the original intent was to assess the long-term responses of multiple taxa, declines 

in funding reduced the frequency and scope of longer term measurements to 

~5-year assessments of the vegetation. 

The DEMO Study has resulted in publication of more than 80 journal articles, 

government reports, dissertations, and theses (see app. 1 for a complete list). With 

the exception of the vegetation studies, however, these publications describe shortterm responses to treatments. Aubry et al. (2009) provided a synthesis of these early 

findings. We recognize that the greater value of the DEMO experiment will emerge 

from an understanding of longer term responses to the treatments. This report 

is intended to support that goal by providing the information needed to relocate 

or reestablish the sampling grids and to access existing data from the study for 

comparative analyses or syntheses. It is a comprehensive reference document that 

describes the experimental sites and treatment histories, sampling methods, experimental infrastructure, and availability of existing data. It includes details on (1) 

study locations; (2) pretreatment forest conditions; (3) experimental design, harvest 

treatments, and postharvest manipulations; (4) permanent sampling grids and 

vegetation plots; (5) scope and history of data collection for each study discipline; 

and (6) data and metadata archived in the Oregon State University Forest Science 

Data Bank (FSDB, https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/data).

The response variables 

in DEMO address 

both ecological and 

silvicultural values, 

as well as public 

perceptions of the 

aesthetic qualities 

of resulting stand 

structures.
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Figure 1—Geographic locations of the six experimental blocks in the DEMO Study: 

WF = Watson Falls, DP = Dog Prairie, BU = Butte, LW = Little White Salmon, PH = 

Paradise Hills, and CF = Capitol Forest.
5

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Study Locations, Experimental Design, and 

Treatment Implementation

Study Locations

Six study locations (experimental blocks) were selected to represent an array of physical 

environments and forest types at low to moderate elevations in western Washington and 

Oregon (table 1). Three are in the Cascade Range (Gifford Pinchot National Forest) and 

one is in the Black Hills (Capitol State Forest) of southwestern Washington; two are in 

the Cascade Range of southwestern Oregon (Umpqua National Forest) (fig. 1). Locations 

were chosen subjectively, constrained by the criteria used for site selection: (1) upland 

areas of relatively homogeneous, mature, Douglas-fir-dominated forest; (2) sufficient area 

to support six square or slightly rectangular 13-ha treatment units; (3) absence of perennial streams or wetlands; and (4) minimal interaction with existing roads or harvest units. 

Abbott et al. (1999) described the challenges faced by forest managers in identifying potential study sites. Within each block, locations of experimental units were chosen to minimize variation in the physical environment and vegetation, given the constraints imposed 

by topography and past management (e.g., roads or older harvest units) (Aubry et al. 1999). 

Homogeneity of initial site conditions was achieved to a greater degree at the Butte, Little 

White Salmon, Dog Prairie, and Capitol Forest blocks than at the Paradise Hills or Watson 

Falls blocks, where experimental units had to be distributed over a larger area. Appendixes 

2 through 7 include orthophotos of the treatment units within each block, as well as road 

maps, topographic maps, and detailed driving directions to each unit.

Among the six blocks, associated canopy and subcanopy tree species differ by forest 

zone, reflecting the geographic and elevational distributions of late-seral/climax species 

(table 1). Four forest zones are represented, ranging from warm/dry Abies concolor and

Abies grandis, to warm/moist Tsuga heterophylla, to cool/moist Abies amabilis (Franklin 

and Dyrness 1988). At the time of treatment, stand ages ranged from 65 to 170 years. Past 

management activities differed among blocks: three had no previous activity, one was 

salvage-logged between 1970 and 1978, one was thinned in 1986, and one regenerated 

naturally after clearcut logging ~65 years earlier (table 1).

Experimental Design

The experiment is a randomized complete block design with six treatments. Treatments represent a broad range of retention levels (15, 40, 75, and 100 percent of original 

basal area) and, for a subset of these, two contrasting patterns (trees evenly dispersed 

vs. aggregated in 1-ha patches) (fig. 1). Treatments were implemented as follows: (1) 100 

percent retention (100%): an undisturbed control for assessing responses to harvest 

and natural temporal variation (fig. 2). (2) 75 percent aggregated retention (75%A): 

all merchantable trees (>18 cm diameter at breast height [dbh]) were removed from three 

Treatments 

represent a broad 

range of retention 

levels (15, 40, 75, 

and 100 percent 

of original basal 

area) and, for a 

subset of these, 

two contrasting 

patterns (trees 

evenly dispersed 

vs. aggregated in 

1-ha patches).
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Table 1—Environmental features and stand characteristics of the six experimental blocks in the Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study Experimental block Elevation Slope Aspect Stand age

Management 

history Tree densitya Basal area

Pseudotsuga menziesii 

site index

Secondary overstory speciesb

Meters Degrees Years Trees per 

hectare

Square meters 

per hectare

Meters at 50 years

Oregon—Umpqua National Forest:

Watson Falls (WF) 945–1310 4–7 Flat 110–130 Salvage logged 

(1970–1978)

310–500 36–52 40–43 ABCO, TSHE, PIPO, 

PIMO

Dog Prairie (DP) 1460–1710 34–62 SW 165 Thinned (1986) 258–475 72–106 30 ABCO, ABMAS, 

CADE

Washington—Gifford Pinchot National Forest:

Butte (BU) 975–1280 40–53 E-SE 70–80 None 759–1,781 48–65 27–32 TSHE, THPLLittle White Salmon (LW) 825–975 40–66 NW-NE 140–170 None 182–335 61–77 30 ABGR, CONUParadise Hills (PH) 850–1035 9–33 Varied 110–140 None 512–1,005 59–87 26–33 TSHE, THPL, ABAM

Washington—Department of Natural Resources:

Capitol Forest (CF)c 210–275 28–52 Varied 65 Second growth 221–562 54–73 37–41 TSHE, THPL, ALRU

Note: Ranges are based on mean pretreatment values among the six treatment units within each experimental block. a Trees >5.0 cm diameter at breast height.b Pseudotsuga menziesii is the primary overstory species in each experimental block. Underscore denotes forest zone (Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Codes for secondary species: ABAM = Abies amabilis; 

ABCO = A. concolor; ABGR = A. grandis; ABMAS = A. magnifica var. shastensis; ALRU = Alnus rubra; CADE = Calocedrus decurrens; CONU = Cornus nuttallii; PIMO = Pinus monticola; 

PIPO = P. ponderosa; THPL = Thuja plicata; TSHE = Tsuga heterophylla.

c Experimental units and sampling grids in Capitol Forest are no longer maintained; sampling was terminated after the 2009 remeasurement.
7

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

circular, 1-ha (56-m radius) “gaps” (25 percent of the treatment unit); all other trees 

were retained. (3) 40 percent dispersed retention (40%D): dominant and co-dominant 

trees were retained in an even distribution throughout the treatment unit (fig. 3); the 

target basal area was that of the corresponding 40%A unit. (4) 40 percent aggregated 

retention (40%A): all trees were retained within five circular, 1-ha aggregates (40 percent of the treatment unit); all merchantable trees in the surrounding matrix (“cleared 

areas”) were harvested (fig. 4) except those retained for conversion to snags (see details 

on snag creation below). (5) 15 percent dispersed retention (15%D): dominant and 

co-dominant trees were retained in an even distribution throughout the treatment unit 

(fig. 5); the target basal area was that of the corresponding 15%A unit. (6) 15 percent 

aggregated retention (15%A): all trees were retained within two circular, 1-ha aggregates (15 percent of the treatment unit) (fig. 6); all merchantable trees in the surrounding 

matrix were harvested except those retained for conversion to snags.

Three aspects of the study design warrant additional discussion. First, the latter two 

treatments test the minimum retention standard (15 percent) in the Northwest Forest 

Plan (USDA and USDI 1994); the others provide for strong contrasts with these. Second, 

treatment combinations were not chosen as operational alternatives, but rather to allow 

for clear separation of the effects of retention level and pattern, or to test their interaction. 

Finally, because treatments were defined by proportional reductions in basal area rather 

than absolute basal-area targets, variation in initial structure among and within blocks 

resulted in significant postharvest variation among treatment replicates (table 2). Maguire 

et al. (2007) discussed this variation and the extent to which basal area targets were 

achieved among treatment units within each block.

Figure 2—Photo of the 100 percent retention (control) treatment on the Dog Prairie experimental block 

(2014, 16 years after harvest). 
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Figure 3—The 40 percent dispersed-retention treatment on the Dog Prairie experimental block (2014, 

16 years after harvest).

Figure 4—The harvested area next to one of the five aggregates in the 40 percent aggregated-retention 

treatment on the Dog Prairie experimental block (2014, 16 years after harvest). A second aggregate is 

seen in the distance, as are several artificially created snags in the harvested area.
9

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Figure 5—The 15 percent dispersed-retention treatment on the Dog Prairie experimental block (2014, 

16 years after harvest).

Figure 6—Inside one of the two aggregates in the 15 percent aggregated-retention treatment on the 

Dog Prairie experimental block (2014, 16 years after harvest).
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Table 2—Density and basal area of trees (≥5 cm diameter at breast height) before and after harvest

Before harvest After harvest

Block Treatment Density Basal area Density Basal area

Trees per 

hectare

Square meters per 

hectare

Trees per 

hectare

Square meters 

per hectare

Watson Falls 100% 310 43.7 388 44.4

75%A 501 36.1 544 34.3

40%D 389 47.7 154 27.1

40%A 357 60.3 161 24.6

15%D 382 51.6 88 8.6

15%A 445 45.4 158 8.4

Dog Prairie 100% 295 89.6 320 99.4

75%A 300 94.1 296 90.1

40%D 372 72.4 149 38.0

40%A 257 92.8 115 37.9

15%D 385 79.7 88 21.0

15%A 460 105.6 84 20.9

Butte 100% 1,119 58.2 1,080 58.2

75%A 1,781 51.4 1,559 41.2

40%D 1,019 48.7 524 28.5

40%A 1,281 57.1 690 24.5

15%D 757 55.7 178 12.1

15%A 928 64.8 201 10.8

Little White Salmon 100% 182 72.1 213 69.9

75%A 336 60.7 294 43.9

40%D 211 77.0 112 37.1

40%A 193 73.3 99 26.7

15%D 272 77.4 49 8.8

15%A 230 63.5 86 11.8

Paradise Hills 100% 1,005 70.9 1,035 74.7

75%A 512 76.1 396 54.2

40%D 877 67.3 139 23.7

40%A 642 58.7 284 24.2

15%D 684 86.7 53 10.8

15%A 732 79.1 123 10.8

Capitol Forest 100% 327 64.7 324 62.9

75%A 372 63.7 263 45.4

40%D 334 57.5 93 26.0

40%A 355 71.5 119 24.8

15%D 221 53.7 35 11.3

15%A 563 73.3 85 10.3
11

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Treatment Implementation: Yarding, Snag Creation, Slash 

Reduction, and Planting of Tree Seedlings

To minimize extraneous variation, methods of yarding and all postharvest activities were applied consistently within each block (table 3). Local forest managers 

selected the most appropriate yarding method: on sloping terrain, helicopters or 

suspension cables were used; on more gentle terrain, ground-based systems (shovel 

loaders and rubber-tired skidders) were used (see Halpern and McKenzie [2001] for 

details). Within each block, felling and yarding were completed within a period of 3 

to 7 months (1997 or 1998).

Because they posed a safety hazard, most snags were felled in the harvested 

portions of the treatment units. To provide replacement snags for the future and 

to address snag-retention guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and 

USDI 1994), 6.5 trees per hectare (typically those with decay or broken tops) were 

retained in the harvested portions of each unit and subsequently topped or girdled 

(table 4). Treatment of nonmerchantable trees (<18 cm dbh) in harvested areas also 

differed among blocks: at two blocks they were either felled, or felled if damaged; 

elsewhere, they were left standing (table 3). During harvest, preexisting down wood 

was retained, but there were no prescriptions to add material. At most blocks, tree 

canopies were left attached to the uppermost log to reduce slash accumulation. Following harvest, slash loadings were evaluated with respect to potential fire hazard 

and ease of planting. At one block (Watson Falls), slash loadings were deemed to be 

excessive and were partially reduced by machine piling and burning on temporary 

skid roads (table 3) (see Halpern and McKenzie [2001] for details).

To ensure that federal and state stocking levels were met, conifer seedlings 

(typically a mix of species) were planted in spring 1998 or 1999 in the harvested 

portions of all experimental units. Planting densities varied among blocks (table 

5) but were considerably lower than those of operational units to limit interactions 

with natural regeneration. At Dog Prairie, substantial loss of seedlings to herbivory 

by western pocket gophers (Thomomys mazama) required replanting of all units in 

2001 (table 5). Other seedling-related treatments included netting (for protection) 

and some branch pruning in the Oregon blocks (table 5). See Urgenson et al. (2013a) 

for details on the survival and growth of planted seedlings. To date, no precommercial thinning has occurred on these experimental sites. 

To provide replacement 

snags for the future 

and to address snagretention guidelines in 

the Northwest Forest 

Plan, 6.5 trees per 

hectare were retained 

in the harvested 

portions of each unit 

and subsequently 

topped or girdled.
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978 Table 3—Methods and dates of harvest and postharvest management activities (continued) Block/ treatment Yarding methoda Timber felled Timber yarded Noncommercial stems felledb Slash piles created Slash piles burned Temporary roads rehabilitated Watson Falls: 75%A Tracked shovel loaders 4 Jun–25 Jul 1998 10 Jun–25 Jul 1998 14 Sep–1 Oct 1998 7–27 Oct 1998 6 and 21 Nov 1998 13 Aug 1998 40%D 8 Sep–3 Oct 1998 8 Sep–13 Oct 1998 12–20 Oct 1998 5–10 Nov 1998 23 Nov 1999 26 Oct 1998 40%A 22 Jun–22 Jul 1998 24 Jul–11 Aug 1998 1–6 Oct 1998 28 Oct–4 Nov 1998 22–23 Nov 1999 12 Aug 1998

15%D 4 Jun–25 Jul 1998 10 Jun–25 Jul 1998 14 Sep–1 Oct 1998 7–27 Oct 1998 6, 18–20 Nov 1998 13 Aug 199815%A 4 Jun–25 Jul 1998 10 Jun–25 Jul 1998 14 Sep–1 Oct 1998 7–27 Oct 1998 6 Nov 1998 13 Aug 1998

Dog Prairie:

75%A Helicopters 20 Jul–2 Sep 1998 3 Aug–4 Sep 199840%D 20 Jul–2 Sep 1998 3 Aug–4 Sep 199840%A 20 Jul–2 Sep 1998 3 Aug–4 Sep 199815%D 20 Jul–2 Sep 1998 3 Aug–4 Sep 199815%A 20 Jul–2 Sep 1998 3 Aug–4 Sep 1998

Butte:

75%A Helicopters 12–27 May 1997 28 May–7 Jun 199740%D 6–19 Jun 1997 20 Jun–14 Jul 1997 

40%A 12–15 May 1997 16 May–14 Jul 199715%D 15–27 May 1997 28 May–14 Jun 199715%A 4–9 Aug 1997 10 Aug–25 Sep 1997

Little White Salmon:

75%A Helicopters 28 Aug–28 Sep 1998 1–27 Oct 199840%D 28 Jun–28 Jul 1998 20 Jul–20 Oct 1998

40%A 28 Aug–28 Sep 1998 1–27 Oct 199815%D 2 Apr–4 Jun 1998 2 Jul–20 Oct 199815%A 30 Mar–30 May 1998 25 Jul–17 Oct 1998
13

Table 3—Methods and dates of harvest and postharvest management activities (continued)Block/treatment Yarding methoda Timber felled Timber yarded

Noncommercial 

stems felledb

Slash piles

created

Slash piles

burned

Temporary roads 

rehabilitated

Paradise Hills:

75%A Tracked shovel 

loaders and rubber-tired skidders

7–28 Aug 1997 2–5 Sep 1997 7–28 Aug 1997

40%D 1–30 Sep 1997 29 Sep–17 Oct 1997 1–30 Sep 1997 1 Sep 1998

40%A 14–29 Aug 1997 8–24 Sep 1997 14–29 Aug 1997 2 Sep 199815%D 16 Jun–22 Jul 1997 23 Jun–1 Aug 1997 16 Jun–22 Jul 1997 3 Sep 199815%A 21 Jul–6 Aug 1997 3–29 Aug 1997 21 Jul–6 Aug 1997 3–4 Sep 1998

Capitol Forest:

75%A Suspension cables 4 Dec 1997–6 Jan 1998 17 Dec 1997–16 Jan 1998

40%D Suspension cables 

(shovel loader, 1.2 ha)

4 Dec 1997–6 Feb 1998 12 Dec 1997–17 Feb 1998

40%A Suspension cables 

(shovel loader, 0.8 ha of southern edge)

17 Mar–7 Apr 1998 11 Mar–6 May 1998

15%D Suspension cables 

(shovel loaders, 2.4 ha of northern and southern edges)

17 Dec 1997–17 Feb 1998 9 Feb–11 Mar 1998

15%A Suspension cables 4 Dec 1997–25 Feb 1998 16 Jan–2 Apr 1998

Note: See table 4 for details on snag creation.a Yarding method applies to all units within each experimental block except where noted. b Dates of felling of all noncommercial stems in harvested areas (Paradise Hills), or damaged stems only (Watson Falls). 
14

Table 4—Methods and dates of snag creation 

Block/treatment Methoda Dates Other notesb

Watson Falls:

75%A Girdled 2–11 Jun 1999

40%D Girdled 27–28 Jun 1999 2 regirdled (Aug 2004)

40%A Girdled 23–24 Jun 1999

15%D Girdled 2–11 Jun 1999

15%A Girdled 2–11 Jun 1999

Dog Prairie:

75%A Girdled 5 Jul–1 Aug 1999

40%D Girdled 5 Jul–1 Aug 1999 7 regirdled (Aug 2004)

40%A Girdled 5 Jul–1 Aug 1999

15%D Girdled 5 Jul–1 Aug 1999 3 regirdled (Aug 2004)

15%A Girdled 5 Jul–1 Aug 1999 7 regirdled (Aug 2004)

Butte:

75%A Topped at ~12 m 4 Jul–6 Aug 1998

40%D Topped at ~12 m 4 Jul–6 Aug 1998

40%A Topped at ~12 m 4 Jul–6 Aug 1998 3 girdled

15%D Topped at ~12 m 4 Jul–6 Aug 1998

15%A Topped at ~12 m 4 Jul–6 Aug 1998 5 topped, 1 regirdled 

(26 Sep 2003)

Little White Salmon:

75%A Girdled at 1 m 1–20 Nov 1998

40%D Girdled at 1 m 1–30 Apr 1999 1 regirdled (19 May 2004)

40%A Girdled at 1 m 1–30 Apr 1999

15%D Girdled at 1 m 1–30 Apr 1999

15%A Girdled at 1 m 1–30 Apr 1999

Paradise Hills:

75%A Topped at ~12 m 28 Aug–12 Oct 1998

40%D Topped at ~12 m 28 Aug–12 Oct 1998 1 girdled

40%A Topped at ~12 m 28 Aug–12 Oct 1998

15%D Topped at ~12 m 28 Aug–12 Oct 1998

15%A Topped at ~12 m 28 Aug–12 Oct 1998 11 girdled

Capitol Forest:

75%A Girdled at 1.4 m 8–19 Apr 1999

40%D Girdled at 1.4 m 8–19 Apr 1999

40%A Girdled at 1.4 m 8–19 Apr 1999 1 regirdled (16 Aug 2004)

15%D Girdled at 1.4 m 8–19 Apr 1999

15%A Girdled at 1.4 m 8–19 Apr 1999

a

 A total of 6.5 snags/ha were created in the harvested portions of each treatment unit. 

b

 Several trees that did not die from initial girdling required regirdling or subsequent topping.
15

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Table 5—Planting of seedlings: species, stock type, density, planting dates, and other activities (continued)

Block/

treatment Speciesa

Stock

type Density

Planting 

(or replanting) dates

Replanting 

density Other activities

Number 

per hectare

Number per 

hectare

Watson Falls:

75%A PSME BR 2-0 149.3 17 Apr 1999 Netting (23 Apr 2001)

PIPO BR 1-0 176.7

PIMO BR 2-0 83.3 Pruning (29 Jul–1 Aug 2002)

40%D PSME BR 2-0 201.9 15 Jun 1999 Netting (23 Apr 2001)

PIPO BR 1-0 165.1

PIMO BR 2-0 135.9 Pruning (28 Aug–19 Sep 2002)

40%A PSME BR 2-0 228.5 2 Jun 1999 Netting (23 Apr 2001)

PIPO BR 1-0 197.6

PIMO BR 2-0 98.8 Pruning (10 Oct 2002)

15%D PSME BR 2-0 207.6 14–15 Apr 1999 Netting (23 Apr 2001)

PIPO BR 1-0 195.8

PIMO BR 2-0 71.6 Pruning (17 Oct 2002)

15%A PSME BR 2-0 220.0 15–17 Apr 1999 Netting (23 Apr 2001)

PIPO BR 1-0 187.4

PIMO BR 2-0 58.6 Pruning (1–28 Aug 2002)

Dog Prairie:

75%A PSME

PIMO

ABMAS

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

163.0

54.0

60.7

24 May–5 Jun 1999 

(8 May 2001)

212.0

37.2

37.2

Netting (6 Jun 2001)

40%D PSME

PIMO

ABMAS

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

120.4

22.2

47.5

24 May–5 Jun 1999 

(9 May 2001)

47.5

9.0

7.7

Netting (31 May 2001)

40%A PSME

PIMO

ABMAS

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

171.1

21.9

52.6

24 May–5 Jun 1999 

(8 May 2001)

176.4

16.8

16.8

Netting (6 Jun 2001)

15%D PSME

PIMO

ABMAS

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

161.1

31.3

47.0

24 May–5 Jun 1999 

(8–9 May 2001)

177.2

22.7

27.3

Netting (6 Jun 2001)

15%A PSME

PIMO

ABMAS

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

146.1

37.5

99.3

24 May–5 Jun 1999 

(26 Apr 2001)

324.1

28.4

52.7

Netting (31 May 2001)
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Table 5—Planting of seedlings: species, stock type, density, planting dates, and other activities (continued)

Block/

treatment Speciesa

Stock

type Density

Planting 

(or replanting) dates

Replanting 

density Other activities

Number 

per hectare

Number per 

hectare

Butte:

75%A PSME

PIMO

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

684.3

66.8

Apr 1998

40%D PSME

PIMO

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

238.4

60.6

26 May 1998

40%A PSME

PIMO

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

377.5

57.6

30 Apr 1998

15%D PSME

PIMO

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

414.3

28.5

1 May 1998

15%A PSME

PIMO

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

735.4

90.2

28 Apr 1998

Little White Salmon:

75%A PSME

PIPO

ABPR

PIMO

BR 2-0

BR 1-1

BR 2-0

BR P-1

303.7

50.1

48.4

100.1

16 Jun 1999

40%D PSME

PIPO

ABPR

PIMO

BR 2-0

BR 1-1

BR 2-0

BR P-1

316.5

54.0

46.3

84.9

1 Jun 1999

40%A PSME

PIPO

ABPR

PIMO

BR 2-0

BR 1-1

BR 2-0

BR P-1

256.0

41.6

41.6

102.4

24 Jun 1999

15%D PSME

PIPO

ABPR

PIMO

BR 2-0

BR 1-1

BR 2-0

BR P-1

312.7

39.1

31.3

93.8

16 Jun 1999

15%A PSME

PIPO

ABPR

PIMO

BR 2-0

BR 1-1

BR 2-0

BR P-1

299.7

50.0

50.0

99.9

17 Jun 1999
17

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Table 5—Planting of seedlings: species, stock type, density, planting dates, and other activities (continued)

Block/

treatment Speciesa

Stock

type Density

Planting 

(or replanting) dates

Replanting 

density Other activities

Number 

per hectare

Number per 

hectare

Paradise Hills:

75%A PSME

ABPR

PIMO

THPL

TSHE

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

BR P-1

BR P-1

200.3

133.5

100.1

50.1

50.1

16 Jun 1999

40%D PSME

ABPR

PIMO

THPL

TSHE

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

BR P-1

BR P-1

219.6

164.1

89.9

38.3

50.0

1–25 Jun 1999

40%A PSME

ABPR

PIMO

THPL

TSHE

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

BR P-1

BR P-1

200.6

100.3

100.3

37.6

0.0

24 Jun 1999

15%D PSME

ABPR

PIMO

THPL

TSHE

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

BR P-1

BR P-1

195.4

101.6

93.8

46.9

46.9

16 Jun 1999

15%A PSME

ABPR

PIMO

THPL

TSHE

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

BR 2-0

BR P-1

BR P-1

194.3

92.5

92.5

62.0

27.8

17 Jun 1999

Capitol Forest:

75%A PSME BR 1-1 741.0 25 Jan 1999

40%D PSME BR 1-1 741.0 15 Mar 2000

40%A PSME BR 1-1 741.0 27 Jan 1999

15%D PSME BR 1-1 741.0 29 Jan 1999

15%A PSME BR 1-1 741.0 3 Feb 1999

a Species codes: ABMAS = Abies magnifica var. shastensis; ABPR = A. procera; PIMO = Pinus monticola; PIPO = P. ponderosa; PSME = Pseudotsuga 

menziesii; THPL = Thuja plicata; TSHE = Tsuga heterophylla.
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Sampling of Major Response Variables

Systematic Sampling Grids

A permanent grid was established in each 13-ha experimental unit to support 

systematic sampling of most biological responses (overstory and understory 

vegetation, amphibians, forest-floor small mammals, arboreal rodents, diurnal 

forest birds, and bark- and litter-dwelling arthropods) (Aubry et al. 1999). To 

provide flexibility in unit placement on the landscape, grids vary in shape (8 ×

8 or 7 × 9 points). However, it was not possible to fully control for landscape 

context; consequently, areas surrounding the grids in each block may differ in 

topographic and ecological characteristics. Grid points are spaced 40 m apart 

(slope-corrected distances); those on the perimeter are located at least 40 m 

from the harvest unit boundary. All grid points are marked with steel reinforcing bars (~50 cm long) covered by PVC posts (~1.5 m tall). Each post has an 

aluminum tag stamped with a unique treatment, row, and column identifier 

(e.g., 1A1; see apps. 2 through 7 for labelled diagrams of the sampling grids in 

each block). The four corner points of each grid are georeferenced at submeter 

accuracy (Albers coordinates are provided in app. 8). Systematic assessments 

of grid system integrity were last completed in 2015–2016 in all experimental 

units except 75%A (last visited in 1998–1999) or at Capitol Forest (last sampled 

in 2009). To assist with navigation in the field, bearings for the rows and columns of each grid are provided in appendix 9. A complete set of interpolated 

grid-point locations is available under the TP108 study code in the Oregon State 

University (OSU) Forest Science Data Bank (FSDB) (http://andlter.forestry.

oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=TP108; see the “Download Study 

Location Information” link).

Overstory and Understory Vegetation

Overstory and understory vegetation were sampled in all experimental blocks 

prior to and at various intervals after treatment. Points on the systematic sampling 

grid serve as the centers of permanent vegetation plots (fig. 7). A nested design is 

used to sample snags (0.08-ha circular plot); overstory trees and planted seedlings 

(0.04-ha circular plot); understory trees, shrubs, and coarse woody debris (four 1 × 

6 m belt or 6-m line transects); and tree seedlings, herbs, bryophytes, and ground 

conditions (six 20 × 50 cm quadrats per transect). Within each plot, all overstory 

trees and snags are identified by uniquely numbered aluminum tags. In all or a 

subset of tree plots per treatment, understory transects are arranged perpendicularly (offset 45 degrees from the grid system) (see app. 10 for transect bearings). 

Transects are marked by polyvinyl chloride (PVC) posts at their end points (4 and 

A permanent grid was 

established in each 13 

hectare experimental 

unit to support 

systematic sampling 

of most biological 

responses (vegetation, 

amphibians, small 

mammals, birds, and 

arthropods).
19

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

10 m from plot center) (fig. 7). Where trees or logs prevented placement of end 

posts at these locations, posts were offset. Similarly, where trees or logs made 

it difficult to connect end points with a meter tape, one or more intermediate 

posts were established. A complete listing of these offset and intermediate posts 

is available under the TP108 study code in the OSU Forest Science Data Bank 

(http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=TP108; see 

“Entity title 2”). 

Systematic assessments of the integrity of vegetation transects were last 

completed in 2015–2016, except for the 75%A treatments in all blocks and all 

treatments at Capitol Forest, which were last assessed in 1998. Sampling intensity 

for vegetation varies by treatment. In the unharvested control (100%), alternate 

grid points are sampled for overstory and understory variables (n = 32 points 

Figure 7—Permanent nested-plot design for sampling vegetation along the systematic grid in each treatment unit. Plots are identified by 

three-character codes representing the treatment number (1 to 6), grid row (letter), and grid column (number). Snags (>25 cm diameter at 

breast height [dbh], >0.5 m tall) are measured in 0.08-ha plots; overstory trees (≥5 cm dbh) and planted seedlings are measured in 0.04-ha 

plots. Understory trees (<5 cm dbh) are sampled in four 1 × 6 m belt transects; shrubs and coarse woody debris (CWD) are sampled along 

four 6-m line transects. Herbs, bryophytes, tree seedlings, and ground conditions are sampled in six 20 × 50 cm quadrats per transect.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

per treatment). In the dispersed-retention treatments (40%D, 15%D), all points 

(n = 63 or 64) are sampled for overstory and alternate points are sampled for 

understory. In the aggregated-retention treatments (40%A, 15%A), all points are 

sampled for overstory and understory in the aggregates (n = 24–25 in 40%A, n

= 10 in 15%A), and a subset of points is sampled in the harvested area (n = 12 in 

40%A, n = 22 in 15%A).

Vegetation was sampled prior to harvest (1994–1996), shortly after harvest 

(1998–2000), and at ~5-year intervals thereafter (2003/2004, 2008/2009, and 2016) 

(table 6). Response variables include an array of structural, compositional, and 

functional-group metrics. Sampling was terminated in the 75%A treatment at all 

sites after the first postharvest measurements. At Capitol Forest (CF), understory 

sampling was terminated after the first postharvest measurement, and overstory 

sampling was terminated after the 2009 measurement (table 6). Additional details 

on sampling and analyses of overstory and understory vegetation are available in 

previous publications (Dovčiak et al. 2006; Halpern et al. 1999, 2005, 2012; Maguire et al. 2006, 2007; Urgenson et al. 2013a, 2013b). All data are archived in FSDB; 

database contents are described in appendix 11.

Additional short-term studies explored edge-related gradients in understory 

vegetation (Nelson and Halpern 2005a, 2005b) and conifer regeneration (Whyte 

2018, Whyte and Halpern 2019) in or adjacent to forest aggregates, and substratespecific responses of bryophytes to varying levels of dispersed retention (Halpern et 

al. 2014). Data from these studies are not archived in FSDB but are available upon 

request from the authors.

Amphibians and Forest-Floor Small Mammals

Amphibians and forest-floor small mammals were sampled in each treatment unit 

in all experimental blocks for 2 consecutive years, both before and after treatment 

(table 7). At each point on the systematic grid, a single pitfall trap was installed 

near logs or other structures, if possible. Traps consisted of two No. 10 cans taped 

together to form a cylinder closed at the bottom with a diameter of about 16 cm and 

a depth of about 35 cm (Corn and Bury 1990). Treatment units within each block 

were trapped nearly synchronously. Trapping was initiated within a 5-day period 

after the onset of fall rains (late September to early November), and traps remained 

open for about 28 days.

Pitfalls were operated as kill traps (although some amphibians were found 

alive) by filling them partially with water that remained near freezing temperatures during autumn sampling; traps were checked weekly. Data collected for 

all captures included species, weight (+0.5 g), total length (+1 mm, salamanders 

Vegetation was 

sampled prior to 

harvest, shortly after 

harvest, and at ~5-year 

intervals thereafter.
21

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Table 6—Dates of pre- and posttreatment sampling of vegetation (continued)

Response variable

Pre- or posttreatmentWatson 

Falls

Dog 

Prairie Butte

Little White 

Salmon

Paradise 

Hills

Capitol 

Forest

Plot physical/site characteristics Pre 1994–1995 1996 1994–1995 1995 1995 1995

Overstory canopy cover: 

“Moosehorn” densiometer Pre 1994–1995 1996 1994–1995 1995 1995 1995

“Truck-mirror” densiometer Pre 1997–1998 1997 1997

Post 1999 1999 1998 1999 1998 1998

Overstory trees: harvest damage Post 1999 1999 1998 1999 1998 1998

Overstory trees: diameter Pre 1994–1995 1996 1994–1995 1995 1995 1995

Posta 1999 1999 1998 1999 1998 1998

2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

2016 2016 2016 2016 2016

Overstory trees: height Pre 1995 1997 1995 1996 1996 1996

Postb 2000 2000 1999 2000 1999 1999

2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

2016 2016 2016 2016 2016

Overstory trees: mortality Postc 2000 2000 1999 2000 1999 1999

2001 2001 2000 2001 2000 2000

2003 2003 2001 2003 2001 2001

2009 2009 2003 2009 2003 2003

2016 2016 2009 2016 2009 2009

2016 2016

Snags: diameter, height, and 

decay class

Pre 1994–1995 1996 1994–1995 1995 1995 1995

Postd 1999 1999 1998 1999 1998 1998

2000 2000 1999 2000 1999 1999

2001 2001 2000 2001 2000 2000

2003 2003 2001 2003 2001 2001

2009 2009 2003 2009 2003 2003

2016 2016 2009 2016 2009 2009

2016 2016
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Table 6—Dates of pre- and posttreatment sampling of vegetation (continued)

Response variable

Pre- or posttreatmentWatson 

Falls

Dog 

Prairie Butte

Little White 

Salmon

Paradise 

Hills

Capitol 

Forest

Logging disturbance: soil 

disturbance, slash cover/depth

Post 1999 1999 1998 1999 1998 1998

Ground-surface conditions: 

cover of substrates

Pre 1994–1995 1996 1994–1995 1995 1995 1995

Posta 1999 2000 1998 1999 1998 1998

2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

2008 2008 2009 2008 2008

Coarse woody debris: volume 

by species and decay class

Pre 1994–1995 1996 1994–1995 1995 1995 1995

Posta 1999 1999 1998 1999 1998 1998

2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

2008 2008 2009 2008 2008

Bryophytes: total cover Pre 1994–1995 1996 1994–1995 1995 1995 1995

Posta 1998 1999 1998 1998

2004 2004 2004

2009 2008 2008

Bryophytes: species presence Pre 1994–1995 1996 1994–1995 1995 1995 1995

Posta 1998 1999 1998 1998

Bryophytes: cover and diversity 

by substrate (100%, 40%D, 

and 15%D only)

Post 2005 2005 2005

Herbs: species cover Pre 1994–1995 1996 1994-1995 1995 1995 1995

Posta 1999 2000 1998 1999 1998 1998

2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

2008 2008 2008 2008 2008

Shrubs/understory trees: species 

cover, height

Pre 1994–1995 1996 1994–1995 1995 1995 1995

Posta 1999 2000 1998 1999 1998 1998

2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

2008 2008 2009 2008 2008
23

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Table 6—Dates of pre- and posttreatment sampling of vegetation (continued)

Response variable

Pre- or posttreatmentWatson 

Falls

Dog 

Prairie Butte

Little White 

Salmon

Paradise 

Hills

Capitol 

Forest

Seedling density (<10 cm tall) Pre 1994–1995 1996 1994–1995 1995 1995 1995

Posta 1999 2000 1998 1999 1998 1998

2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

2008 2008 2009 2008 2008

Natural regeneration density 

(≥10 cm tall, <5 cm dbh)

Pre 1994–1995 1996 1994–1995 1995 1995 1995

Posta 1999 2000 1998 1999 1998 1998

2003 2009 2009 2009 2003

2009 2016 2016 2016 2009

2016 2016

Natural regeneration leader 

growth 

Post 2003 2003

Planted seedlings: survival 

and height

Posta 1999 1999 1998 1999 1999 1999

2000 2000 1999 2000 2000 2000

2003 2001 2000 2003 2003 2001e

2009 2003 2003 2009 2009 2003

2009 2009 2009

Repeat photography (permanent 

photo points)f

Pre 1996–1998 1998 1996–1998 1996–1997 1996–1997

Post 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000

2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006

a 75%A last sampled in 1998–1999.

b 75%A last sampled in 2003.

c 75%A last sampled in 2001.

d 75%A last sampled in 2000.

e 40%D only, planted 1 year later than the other treatments.

f

 Image files are available on request from the Oregon State University Forest Science Data Bank (see entity 20 

under study code TP108; http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=TP108).
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

only), snout-vent length (+1 mm, salamanders and frogs), and condition (alive, 

dead, decaying). Sex was usually reported for dead animals (~70 percent of captures) and, if possible, for live animals. Data collected for a subset of dead female 

amphibians included presence of eggs in the body cavity, number of yolked eggs, 

typical diameter of yolked eggs (+0.5 mm), and number of egg generations present. 

Other notes included loss or condition of the tail. Live animals were marked by toe 

clipping and released.

Small mammals were dissected in the lab. Data collected included species, sex, 

body size (total and tail length, weight), and reproductive data. Dental or skull characters were used to identify shrews and voles; a tail-length threshold of 96 mm was 

used to separate adult Peromyscus keeni from P. maniculatus (Allard et al. 1987). In 

addition, juveniles (<16 g) with undamaged tails <85 mm in length were identified 

as P. maniculatus. Additional details on sampling and data analyses for amphibians 

and small mammals are available in previous publications (Gitzen 2006, Gitzen and 

West 2002, Gitzen et al. 2007, Maguire et al. 2005). Data are archived in FSDB; 

database contents are described in appendix 12.

Table 7—Dates of pre- and posttreatment sampling of wildlife

Response variable 

(sampling method)

Pre- or posttreatmentWatson

Falls

Dog

Prairie Butte

Little White 

Salmon

Paradise 

Hills

Capitol 

Forest

Amphibians and 

forest-floor small 

mammals (pitfall 

trapping)

Pre 1995–1996 1995–1996 1995–1996 1995–1996 1995–1996 1995–1996

Post 1999–2000 1999–2000 1998–1999 1999–2000 1998–1999 1998–1999

Arboreal rodents 

(live trapping)

Prea 1995–1996b 1995c 1995–1996 1994–1995c 1994–1995c 1995–1996

Post 1999–2000 1998–1999 1998–1999

Bats (ultrasonic 

detectors)

Pre 1994–1995 1995–1996 1994–1995 1994–1995 1994–1995 1995–1996

Post 1999–2000 1999–2000 1998–1999 1999–2000 1998–1999 1998–1999

Diurnal forest birds 

(point counts)d

Pre 1994–1995 1996–1997 1995–1996 1995–1996 1995–1996 1995–1996

Post 2000–2001 2000–2001 1998–1999 1999–2000 1998–1999 1999–2000

Diurnal forest birds

(spot mapping)

Pre 1994 1997 1996 1996 1996 1996

Post 2000–2001 2000–2001 1998–1999 1999–2000 1998–1999 1999–2000

a During pretreatment trapping, 75%A was not sampled because of logistical constraints.

b Live trapping of arboreal rodents also occurred during pilot studies in 1993 and 1994.

c Pretreatment data indicated that flying squirrel abundances were too low to justify posttreatment sampling.

d Data on Douglas’ squirrels (Tamiasciurus douglasii) and Townsend’s chipmunks (Tamias townsendii) were also obtained during point counts of 

diurnal birds.
25

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Arboreal Rodents

Arboreal rodents were sampled for 2 consecutive years both before and after 

treatment in only three of the experimental blocks (table 7) because pretreatment 

sampling in the remaining blocks indicated that flying squirrel abundances were 

too low to detect treatment effects (Lehmkuhl et al. 1999). Live-trap and markrecapture techniques were employed. One Tomahawk 201 trap was set at each grid 

point from mid-September to early November. Before treatment, trap placement 

alternated between the ground and a height of 1.5 m on the bole of an adjacent tree; 

after treatment, all traps were placed on the ground. During each year, traps were 

opened for 4 consecutive nights in each of 2 consecutive weeks, closed for 2 weeks, 

then opened again for a second 2-week period. Thus, each trapping session encompassed 6 weeks per year (16 trap-nights per trap per year).

Each trap was covered with a waxed milk carton and had an insulated nest box 

attached to it. Traps were baited with a mixture of peanut butter, rolled oats, and 

molasses, and checked daily. Captured animals were individually marked with a 

numbered metal tag in each ear, identified to species, sexed, aged, weighed, and 

released. During the first pretreatment year (1995), logistical constraints prevented 

sampling of the 75%A treatments. Additional details on sampling and analyses of 

arboreal rodents are available in previous publications (Holloway et al. 2012, Wilk et 

al. 2015). Data are archived in FSDB; database contents are described in appendix 12. 

Bats

Bat activity was sampled in all experimental blocks for 2 consecutive years both 

before and after treatment (table 7). Ultrasonic detectors were used to survey for 

2 consecutive nights on at least three occasions per field season (late June through 

early September). Before treatment, one monitoring station was placed in each 

experimental unit. After treatment, one station was placed in the control (100%) and 

two in both dispersed-retention (40%D, 15%D) and aggregated-retention (40%A, 

15%A) treatments. In the latter, one detector was placed in an aggregate and one in 

the harvested area. Detectors were placed 1 m from the ground surface, oriented 30 

degrees from horizontal, and set to record for 8 to 9 hours, beginning at dusk. For 

data analyses, bat species were grouped based on echolocation call characteristics 

as either small-bodied Myotis or larger bodied non-Myotis. Additional details on 

sampling and analyses of bat activity are available in previous publications (Erickson 1998, Erickson and Adams 2003, Erickson and West 2003). Data are archived in 

FSDB; database contents are described in appendix 12.
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Diurnal Forest Birds

Diurnal forest birds were sampled in all experimental blocks. Sampling included both 

point counts (2 consecutive years both before and after treatment) and territory (spot) 

mapping (1 year before treatment and 2 consecutive years after treatment) (table 7). 

For point counts, four stations were established in each treatment unit >160 m apart 

and >80 m from the treatment boundaries. Each unit was surveyed six times during 

the breeding season (May to mid July). All birds within 50 m were tallied by species 

for 8 minutes at each station, and each survey was completed within 3 hours of dawn. 

Spot mapping was conducted as observers walked between point-count stations and 

after point counts were completed. Indices of relative abundance were computed as 

the mean number of detections per species, visit, and treatment unit. Pairing success 

(defined as the number of territories in each treatment unit in which males successfully paired) was assessed by observing (1) females in territories, (2) pairing and nesting behavior, and (3) changes in male song type. Additional details on sampling and 

analyses of diurnal forest birds are available in previous publications (Leu 2000, Wilk 

2019). Data are archived in FSDB; database contents are described in appendix 12.

Foliage-, Bark-, and Litter-Dwelling Arthropods

Foliage-dwelling arthropods were sampled in all blocks before treatment (1996) and 

for 2 consecutive years after treatment (1999, 2000) (table 8). In each treatment unit, 

one dominant Douglas-fir was rigged for canopy access. In 40%A and 15%A treatments, the tree selected was near the center of a planned aggregate; after treatment 

a second tree was added near the edge of the aggregate to assess edge effects. Each 

tree was sampled in June and August of each year at three canopy positions: within 

5 m of the top, mid-canopy, and within 5 m of the lowest foliated branch. At each 

position, a plastic bag was placed over a branch for a distance of 0.5 m, the branch 

was clipped, and the bag was sealed. In addition to sampling overstory Douglas-fir, 

three understory vine maples (Acer circinatum) were sampled in each treatment 

unit in the three Washington blocks in which vine maple was common. Locations 

within each unit were chosen in a manner similar to that of Douglas-fir, but only a 

single branch was sampled per individual.

Arthropods collected from each sample were sorted and identified in the 

laboratory. Foliage and branch material were dried at 50 °C to a constant weight. 

Arthropod abundance was standardized as the number of individuals per kilogram 

of plant sample. Taxa were analyzed by functional group (folivores, sap-suckers, 

gall-formers, predators, and detritivores), although the abundance patterns of 

common species were also examined. Additional details on sampling and analyses 

of foliage-dwelling arthropods are available in previous publications (Progar and 
27

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Schowalter 2002, Progar et al. 1999, Schowalter et al. 2005). Only pretreatment data 

are archived in FSDB; database contents are described in appendix 13.

Bark- and litter-dwelling arthropods (the latter limited to spiders and carabid 

beetles) were sampled 5 to 7 years after treatment in a subset of the experimental blocks and treatments (table 8). Sample locations coincided with permanent 

vegetation plots to assess the importance of local habitat structure. Bark-dwelling 

arthropods were sampled using “crawl” traps placed 1.5 to 2 m from the ground 

surface on live and dead trees. Drift fences guided crawling arthropods upward into 

a collecting cup containing a preservative. Traps were installed on 20 live and 20 

dead trees (all Douglas-firs ≥50 cm dbh) in each of four treatments (100%, 40%D, 

40%A, and 15%D) and on half as many live and dead trees in 15%A. Because many 

snags were felled during harvest, a significant proportion (35 to 80 percent) of snags 

in the dispersed-retention treatments were those created artificially by girdling or 

topping (see “Treatment Implementation: Yarding, Snag Creation, Slash Reduction, 

and Planting of Tree Seedlings”). Traps were installed in April–May 2003 and 

remained open for 2 to 4 weeks during each of four to six sampling periods from 

May through August. Specimens were identified in the laboratory: spiders to the 

lowest taxon possible and non-arachnids to order. Abundance was expressed as an 

activity-density index (number of individuals collected/trap/day). Additional details 

on sampling and analyses of bark-dwelling arthropods are provided in Halaj et al. 

(2009). Data are archived in FSDB; database contents are described in appendix 13.

Litter-dwelling arthropods were sampled 5 to 7 years after treatment in a subset 

of the experimental blocks and treatments (table 8) using pitfall traps. Each trap 

consisted of two plastic cups (12.5 cm in diameter). A larger, 8-cm-deep “sleeve” 

cup buried flush with the soil surface formed a receptacle for a smaller “collecting” cup containing preservative. Each trap was covered by a metal “roof” (13 × 

Table 8—Dates of pre- and posttreatment sampling of foliage-, bark-, and litter-dwelling arthropods

Response variable 

(sampling method)

Pre- or 

posttreatment

Watson 

Falls Dog Prairie Butte

Little White 

Salmon

Paradise 

Hills

Capitol 

Forest

Foliage-dwelling 

arthropods (branch 

sampling)

Pre 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996

Post 1999–

2000

1999–

2000

1999–

2000

1999–

2000

1999–

2000

1999–

2000

Bark-dwelling arthropods 

(crawl trapping)

Posta 2003–

2004

2003–

2004

2003–

2004

Litter-dwelling arthropods 

(pitfall trapping)

Posta 2003–

2004

2003–

2004

2003–

2004

2003–

2004

a 75%A was not sampled because of logistical constraints.
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

13 cm) set 3 to 5 cm above the soil surface. In the unharvested control (100%) and 

dispersed-retention treatments (40%D, 15%D), traps were placed in 15 randomly 

selected vegetation plots. In the aggregated-retention treatments (40%A, 15%A), 

traps were installed in plots at varying distances from aggregate edges, both inside 

and outside of the aggregates: (1) the centers of aggregates (n = 2 to 5 per treatment 

unit); (2) intermediate positions within aggregates (~15 m from the edge, n = 3 to 4 

per unit); (3) aggregate edges (n = 6 to 8 per unit); and (4) harvested areas (~20 to 

100 m from the edge, n = 8 per treatment). Traps were installed in June 2003 and 

sampled for 2 weeks in each of June, July, and August in 2003 and 2004. Collected 

arthropods were preserved in ethanol and identified to the lowest taxon possible. 

Analyses focused on the major predaceous groups: Araneae (spiders), Opiliones 

(harvestmen), and Carabidae (ground beetles). Additional details on sampling and 

analyses of litter-dwelling arthropods are provided in Halaj et al. (2008). Data are 

archived in FSDB; database contents are described in appendix 13.

Ectomycorrhizal Fungi

Ectomycorrhizal sporocarps (mushrooms and truffles) were sampled in all treatments 

in three of the experimental blocks (table 9). Sampling was timed to peak fruiting in 

spring and fall in 2 to 3 consecutive years both before and after harvest. Mushrooms 

(epigeous sporocarps) were collected from six strip plots (2 × 50 m) per treatment 

unit. Three were permanent plots (one each at upper-, mid-, and lower-slope positions); three were nonpermanent plots (repositioned at each sampling date). In the 

aggregated-retention treatments (75%A, 40%A, and 15%A), postharvest samples 

were distributed in proportion to the area comprising aggregates and clearings. 

Truffles (hypogeous sporocarps) were sampled in 25 4-m2 plots per treatment 

unit, arrayed along transects nested within the nonpermanent plots. However, for 

one pre- and posttreatment sample in both spring and fall, truffle plots were systematically dispersed across each grid. As with mushroom plots, in the aggregatedretention treatments, postharvest samples were distributed in proportion to the area 

comprising aggregates and clearings. In each truffle plot, the forest floor was raked to 

a depth of 5 to 10 cm to expose sporocarps in the upper soil layers. Sporocarps were 

identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, dried for 8 to 18 hours at 63 °C, and 

Table 9—Dates of pre- and posttreatment sampling of ectomycorrhizal fungi

Response variable

Pre- or 

posttreatment Watson Falls Dog Prairie Butte

Little White 

Salmon

Paradise 

Hills

Capitol 

Forest

Mushroom and truffle 

sporocarps

Pre 1993–1996 1995–1997 1994–1996

Post 1999–2001 1999–2001 1998–2000
29

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

weighed to the nearest 0.01 g. Analyses focused on seasonal differences in sporocarp 

production (biomass) among treatments. Additional details on sampling and analyses 

of ectomycorrhizal fungi are available in Luoma et al. (2004). Data are archived in 

FSDB; database contents are described in appendix 14. 

Microclimate

Microclimatic conditions were assessed in a subset of the experimental blocks 

and treatments 6 to 7 years after harvest (2004) (table 10). The primary response 

variables included light availability, air and soil temperature (daily mean and 

maximum), and soil moisture. Two sampling designs were used. The first design 

sampled variation across the gradient of dispersed retention (0, 15, 40, and 100 

percent) with the harvested (cleared) portions of 15%A used to represent 0 percent retention. Measurements were made at 20 of the 22 to 32 permanent vegetation plots within each unit. The second design sampled variation across the edges 

of aggregates (15%A only). Four transects (two per aggregate) were established 

in each unit along the lines of the systematic grid; at each aggregate, transects 

were oriented perpendicular to each other to sample different exposures. Each 

transect began at the aggregate center and extended into the harvested area to a 

distance of 63 m from the aggregate edge. Measurements were made at 15 points 

along the transect: eight inside the aggregate (0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 and 56.4 m 

from the edge) and seven in the harvested area (5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, and 63 m 

from the edge). 

Estimates of light availability were obtained from hemispherical photographs 

of the forest canopy taken 2 m above the ground surface. Images were analyzed 

with the software Gap Light Analyzer 2.0 (GLA) (Frazer et al. 1999), employing 

the standard overcast sky model (UOC). Total transmitted light, or photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), was calculated for the growing season (June 

through September). Air and soil temperature were measured using temperature 

Table 10—Dates of posttreatment sampling of microclimate

Study

Pre- or 

posttreatment

Watson 

Falls

Dog

Prairie Butte

Little White 

Salmon

Paradise 

Hills

Capitol 

Forest

Variation with level of 

retentiona

Post 2004 2004 2004

Gradients in and adjacent 

to forest aggregatesb

Post 2004 2004 2004

a

 Four environments were sampled representing a gradient of dispersed retention in each block: the harvested portion of 15%A (0 percent retention), 

15%D, 40%D, and 100% (control).

b

 Transects were used to sample gradients in microclimate across the edges of aggregates in 15%A. Data were compared to two types of controls: 

0 percent retention (harvested portions of 15%A) and 100%.
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

data loggers (Model DS1921G, iButton Thermochron).1 Two loggers were used at 

each sample point: the first on a wooden stake 1 m above the ground surface (air), 

the second 15 cm beneath the ground surface (soil). Loggers for air temperature 

were placed on the inside of one-half of a small (10 cm deep) plastic cup covered 

with aluminum foil to prevent direct radiation and perforated to allow airflow. 

Cups were attached to a wooden post extending perpendicular from the top of 

each stake. Air and soil temperatures were recorded hourly during a 2- to 3-week 

period between mid July and late September. Measurements were synchronous 

within blocks but staggered among blocks. From these continuous measurements, 

5 days were selected for analysis to represent the most stressful summer conditions (i.e., hot sunny days).

Volumetric soil moisture was measured using time domain reflectometry 

(TDR). Stainless steel probes, 30 cm long, were inserted at a 30° angle to the soil 

surface to sample the upper 15 cm of mineral soil. Probes remained in place for 

the entire sampling period. At the time of measurement, probes were attached to a 

TDR monitor with alligator clips soldered to coaxial wire and data were recorded 

on a palmtop computer. Multiple measurements were made over the growing 

season to track the seasonal decline in available moisture. At each measurement, 

all points within a block were sampled in a 1- to 2-day period of dry weather (no 

precipitation during the previous 48 hours). All blocks were visited in the same 

week. Additional details on sampling and analyses of microclimatic conditions 

are available in previous publications (Heithecker 2005; Heithecker and Halpern 

2006, 2007). Data are archived in FSDB; database contents are described in 

appendix 15.

Public Perceptions (Aesthetics)

Several survey-based studies were conducted to evaluate public perceptions of the 

visual qualities of variable-retention harvests, although they did not use the DEMO 

treatments directly (Ribe 2005a, 2005b; 2006; 2009; Ribe et al. 2013). Opinion 

surveys were based on photographs (some simulated) representing a broad array of 

retained forest structures, accompanied by narratives describing the ecological and 

resource values portrayed by these images. The data generated by these studies are 

not archived in FSDB, but the publications resulting from this work are listed in 

appendix 1.

1 The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service.
31

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

The DEMO Study: Unique Opportunities for Research 

on Variable-Retention Harvests

Long-term ecological studies are recognized as critical tools for documenting and 

addressing environmental challenges in a world increasingly dominated by human 

influences (Hobbie et al. 2003, Lindenmayer et al. 2012b, Strayer et al. 1986), and 

provide unique insights into ecological processes that are highly dynamic or time 

dependent (e.g., reflecting the life spans, growth rates, or dispersal abilities of 

organisms). Long-term experiments also serve broader purposes in science and 

resource management: they provide data that can be used to develop, test, or parameterize theoretical or simulation models; they serve as infrastructures and catalysts 

for multi- or interdisciplinary endeavors; and they address questions and uncertainties that help to shape natural resource management and policy (Lindenmayer et al. 

2012b, Poage and Anderson 2007). 

Globally, retention forestry is emerging as an important tool for providing wood 

while maintaining biodiversity (Gustaffson et al. 2012, Lindenmayer et al. 2012a). 

In various parts of the world, operational-scale experiments in variable retention 

have been initiated to address the information needs of forest managers (see review 

in Gustaffson et al. 2012). These studies generally support the hypothesis that 

partial retention of the overstory benefits biodiversity, at least in the short term 

(Fedrowitz et al. 2014, Gustaffson et al. 2012, Mori and Kitigawa 2014, Rosenvald 

and Lõhmus 2008). However, there is a critical need for longer term studies, given 

the life spans of many forest organisms and the long time periods during which 

forests regenerate and mature. The DEMO Study is unique among operationalscale, variable-retention experiments in its longevity and design, investments in 

infrastructure and data quality, and ease of accessing existing data and metadata 

archives. This report provides critical documentation of these investments to 

facilitate future studies, analyses, and syntheses. 

Acknowledgments

The development and implementation of the DEMO Study would not have been possible without the dedication and long-term commitment of numerous individuals from 

a broad array of public agencies, universities, and private interest groups. Dean Berg 

(deceased) and Jerry Franklin conceived of the need for a large-scale experiment on 

green-tree retention in the Pacific Northwest, and proposed an initial design for the 

study. Data collection and processing, analyses, publications, and public outreach 

involved the work of hundreds of scientists, postdoctoral researchers, graduate 

The DEMO Study 

is unique among 

operational-scale, 

variable-retention 

experiments in its 

longevity and design, 

investments in 

infrastructure and data 

quality, and ease of 

accessing existing data 

and metadata archives.
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

students, and biological technicians from many different institutions in the Pacific 

Northwest. Charley Peterson (retired) of the Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research 

Station served as chair of the Scientific Oversight Committee for the DEMO Study. 

We are grateful for his enthusiasm, dedication to the research-management partnership, and efforts to secure long-term funding, and for commissioning the preparation 

of this report. Cathy Raley (PNW) prepared the orthophoto overlays presented in 

appendixes 2 through 7. Gody Spycher (retired) and Suzanne Remillard (Oregon 

State University Forest Science Data Bank) were instrumental in the design and 

implementation of database structures and procedures, ensuring that data and metadata will remain accessible to interested researchers in perpetuity via the Internet. We 

thank Paul Anderson, Charley Peterson, and Richard Bigley for helpful suggestions 

on previous versions of this report.

List of Tree Species Identified in This Report

Common name Scientific name

Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) 

Grand fir Abies grandis (Douglas ex D. Don) Lindl. 

Incense cedar Calocedrus decurrens (Torr.) Florin

Pacific dogwood Cornus nuttallii Audubon ex Torr. & A. Gray

Pacific silver fir Abies amabilis (Douglas ex Loudon) Douglas ex Forbes

Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa Lawson & C. Lawson

Red alder Alnus rubra Bong.

Shasta red fir Abies magnifica A. Murray bis var. shastensis Lemmon

Vine maple Acer circinatum Pursh

Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. 

Western redcedar Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don

Western white pine Pinus monticola Douglas ex. D. Don

White fir Abies concolor (Gord & Glend.) Lindl. Ex Hildebr.

U.S. Equivalents

When you have: Multiply by: To get:

Millimeters (mm) 0.0394 Inches

Centimeters (cm) 0.394 Inches

Meters (m) 3.28 Feet

Square meters (m2

) 10.76 Square feet

Hectares (ha) 2.47 Acres

Grams (g) 0.0352 Ounces

Degrees Celsius (°C) 1.8 °C + 32 Degrees Fahrenheit
33

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Literature Cited

Abbott, R.S.; White, J.D.; Woodard B.L. 1999. The benefits and challenges of 

large-scale silvicultural experiments: perspectives from forest managers on the 

Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) study. Northwest 

Science. 73(Special Issue): 118–125.

Allard, M.W.; Gunn, S.J.; Greenbaum, I.F. 1987. Mensural discrimination of 

chromosomally characterized Peromyscus oreas and P. maniculatus. Journal of 

Mammalogy. 68(2): 402–406.

Aubry, K.B.; Amaranthus, M.P.; Halpern, C.B.; White, J.D.; Woodard, B.L.; 

Peterson, C.E.; Lagoudakis, C.A.; Horton, A.J. 1999. Evaluating the effects 

of varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention: experimental design of the 

DEMO study. Northwest Science. 73(Special Issue): 12–26.

Aubry, K.B.; Halpern, C.B., Peterson, C.E. 2009. Variable-retention harvests in 

the Pacific Northwest: a review of short-term findings from the DEMO study. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 258(4): 398–408.

Baker, S.C.; Halpern, C.B.; Wardlaw, T.J.; Crawford, R.L.; Bigley, R.E.; 

Edgar, G.J.; Evans, S.A.; Franklin, J.F.; Jordan, G.J.; Karpievitch, Y.; 

Spies, T.A.; Thomson, R.J. 2015. Short- and long-term benefits for forest 

biodiversity of retaining unlogged patches in harvested areas. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 353: 187–195. 

Barg, A.K.; Edmonds, R.L. 1999. Influence of partial cutting on site 

microclimate, soil nitrogen dynamics, and microbial biomass in Douglas-fir 

stands in western Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 29(6): 

705–713. 

Beese, W.J.; Dunsworth, B.G.; Zielke, K.; Bancroft, B. 2003. Maintaining 

attributes of old-growth forests in coastal B.C. through variable retention. 

Forestry Chronicle. 79(3): 570–578.

Brooks, D.J.; Grant, G.E. 1992. New approaches to forest management: 

background, science issues, and research agenda. Part one of two parts. Journal 

of Forestry. 90(1): 25–28.

Cline, E.T.; Ammirati, J.F.; Edmonds, R.L. 2005. Does proximity to mature 

trees influence ectomycorrhizal fungus communities of Douglas-fir seedlings? 

New Phytologist. 166(3): 993–1009.
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Corn, P.S.; Bury, R.B. 1990. Sampling methods for terrestrial amphibians and 

reptiles. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-256. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 34 p.

Dovčiak, M.; Halpern, C.B.; Saracco, J.F.; Evans, S.A.; Liguori, D.A. 2006. 

Persistence of ground-layer bryophytes in a structural retention experiment: 

initial effects of level and pattern of overstory retention. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research. 36(11): 3039–3052.

Drever, R.C.; Lertzman, K.P. 2003. Effects of a wide gradient of retained tree 

structure on understory light in coastal Douglas-fir forests. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research. 33(1): 137–146.

Erickson, J.L. 1998. The influence of regional, landscape, and local habitat 

conditions on bat activity in forests of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: 

University of Washington. 152 p. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Erickson, J.L.; Adams, M.J. 2003. A comparison of bat activity at low and high 

elevations in the Black Hills of western Washington. Northwest Science. 77(2): 

126–130.

Erickson, J.L.; West, S.D. 2003. Associations of bats with local structure and 

landscape features of forested stands in western Oregon and Washington. 

Biological Conservation. 109(1): 95–102.

Fedrowitz, K.; Koricheva, J.; Baker, S.C.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Palik, B.; 

Rosenvald, R.; Beese, W.; Franklin, J.F.; Kouki, J.; Macdonald, E.; Messier, 

C.; Sverdrup-Thygeson, A.; Gustafsson, L. 2014. Can retention forestry help 

conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology. 51(6): 

1669–1679.

Franklin, C.M.; Macdonald, S.E.; Nielsen, S.E. 2018. Combining aggregated 

and dispersed tree retention harvesting for conservation of vascular plant 

communities. Ecological Applications. 28(7): 1830–1840. 

Franklin, J.F. 1989. Toward a new forestry. American Forests. November/

December: 37–44. 

Franklin, J.F.; Berg, D.R.; Thornburgh, D.A.; Tappeiner, J.C. 1997. Alternative 

silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention harvest systems. 

In: Kohm, K.A.; Franklin, J.F., eds. Creating a forestry for the 21st century: the 

science of ecosystem management. Washington, DC: Island Press: 111–139.

Franklin, J.F.; Dyrness, C.T. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 452 p.
35

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Franklin, J.F.; Norris, L.A.; Berg, D.R.; Smith, G.R. 1999. The history 

of DEMO: an experiment in regeneration harvest of northwestern forest 

ecosystems. Northwest Science. 73(Special Issue): 3–11. 

Franklin, J.F.; Spies, T.A.; Van Pelt, R.; Carey, A.B.; Thornburgh, D.A.; 

Berg, D.R.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Harmon, M.E.; Keeton, W.S.; Shaw, D.C.; 

Bible, K.; Chen, J. 2002. Disturbances and structural development of natural 

forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an 

example. Forest Ecology and Management. 155(1–3): 399–423. 

Frazer, G.W.; Canham, C.D.; Lertzman, K.P. 1999. Gap Light Analyzer 

(GLA): imaging software to extract canopy structure and gap light indices from 

true-colour fisheye photographs. Users manual and program documentation, 

version 2.0. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University; Millbrook, NY: Institute of 

Ecosystem Studies. 36 p.

Gitzen, R.A. 2006. Responses of small mammals to green-tree retention harvests 

in forests of western Oregon and Washington. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington. 128 p. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Gitzen, R.A.; West, S.D. 2002. Small mammal response to experimental canopy 

gaps in the southern Washington Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management. 

168(1–3): 189–201.

Gitzen, R.A.; West, S.D.; Maguire, C.C.; Manning, T.; Halpern, C.B. 2007. 

Response of terrestrial small mammals to varying amounts and patterns 

of green-tree retention in Pacific Northwest forests. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 251(3): 142–155.

Gustafsson, L.; Baker, S.C.; Bauhaus, J.; Beese, W.J.; Brodie, A.; Kouki, J.; 

Lindenmayer, D.B.; Lõhmus, A.; Martίnez Pastur, G.; Messier, C.; Neyland, 

M.; Palik, B.; Sverdup-Thygeson, A.; Volney, W.J.A.; Wayne, A.; Franklin, 

J.F. 2012. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: a world 

perspective. BioScience. 62(7): 633–645.

Halaj, J.; Halpern, C.B.; Yi, H. 2008. Responses of litter-dwelling spiders and 

carabid beetles to varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 255(3–4): 887–900.

Halaj, J.; Halpern, C.B.; Yi, H. 2009. Effects of green-tree retention on 

abundance and guild composition of corticolous arthropods. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 258(5): 850–859.
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Halpern, C.B.; Dovčiak, M.; Urgenson, L.S.; Evans, S.A. 2014. Substrates 

mediate responses of forest bryophytes to a gradient in overstory retention. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 44(8): 855–866.

Halpern, C.B.; Evans, S.A.; Nelson, C.R.; McKenzie, D.; Liguori, D.A.; 

Hibbs, D.E.; Halal, M.G. 1999. Response of forest vegetation to varying levels 

and patterns of green-tree retention: an overview of a long-term experiment. 

Northwest Science. 73(Special Issue): 27–44.

Halpern, C.B.; Halaj, J.; Evans, S.A.; Dovčiak, M. 2012. Level and pattern 

of overstory retention interact to shape long-term responses of understories to 

timber harvest. Ecological Applications. 22(8): 2049–2064.

Halpern, C.B.; McKenzie, D. 2001. Disturbance and post-harvest ground 

conditions in a structural retention experiment. Forest Ecology and Management. 

154(1–2): 215–225.

Halpern, C.B.; McKenzie, D.; Evans, S.A.; Maguire, D.A. 2005. Initial 

responses of forest understories to varying levels and patterns of green-tree 

retention. Ecological Applications. 15(1): 175–195.

Heithecker, T.D. 2005. Variation in microclimate associated with dispersedretention harvests in coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: 

University of Washington. 44 p. M.S. thesis.

Heithecker, T.D.; Halpern, C.B. 2006. Variation in microclimate associated with 

dispersed-retention harvests in coniferous forests of western Washington. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 226(1–3): 60–71.

Heithecker, T.D.; Halpern, C.B. 2007. Edge-related gradients in microclimate in 

forest aggregates following structural retention harvests in western Washington. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 248(3): 163–173.

Hobbie, J.E.; Carpenter, S.R.; Grimm; N.B.; Gosz, J.R.; Seastedt, T.R. 2003. 

The US Long Term Ecological Research Program. BioScience. 53(1): 21–32.

Holloway, G.L.; Smith, W.P.; Halpern, C.B.; Gitzen, R.A.; Maguire, C.C.; 

West, S.D. 2012. Influence of forest structure and experimental green-tree 

retention on northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) abundance. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 285: 187–194. 

Kennedy, R.S.H.; Spies, T.A. 2004. Forest cover changes in the Oregon Coast 

Range from 1939 to 1993. Forest Ecology and Management. 200(1–3): 129–147.
37

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; West, S.D.; Chambers, C.L.; McComb, W.C.; Manuwal, D.A.; 

Aubry, K.B.; Erickson, J.L.; Gitzen, R.A.; Leu, M. 1999. Assessing wildlife 

response to varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention in western Oregon 

and Washington. Northwest Science. 73(Special Issue): 45–63.

Leu, M. 2000. Breeding territory settlement patterns and mate choice in a 

monochromatic tyrannid flycatcher. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 

119 p. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Lindenmayer, D.B.; Franklin, J.F.; Lõhmus, A.; Baker, S.C.; Bauhus, J.; 

Beese, W.; Brodie, A.; Kiehl, B.; Kouki, J.; Martinez Pastur, G.; Messier, 

C.; Neyland, M.; Palik, B.; Sverdrup-Thygeson, A.; Volney, J.; Wayne, A.; 

Gustafsson, L. 2012a. A major shift to the retention approach for forestry can 

help resolve some global forest sustainability issues. Conservation Letters. 5(6): 

421–431.

Lindenmayer, D.B.; Likens, G.E.; Andersen, A.; Bowman, D; Bull, C.M.; 

Burns, E.; Dickman, C.R.; Hoffmann, A.A.; Keith, D.A.; Liddell, M.J.; 

Lowe, A.J.; Metcalfe, D.J.; Phinn, S.R.; Russell-Smith, J.; Thurgate, N.; 

Wardle, G.M. 2012b. Value of long-term ecological studies. Austral Ecology. 

37(7): 745–757.

Lõhmus, P.; Rosenvald, R.; Lõhmus, A. 2006. Effectiveness of solitary retention 

trees for conserving epiphytes: differential short-term responses of bryophytes 

and lichens. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36(5): 1319–1330.

Luoma, D.L.; Eberhart, J.L.; Molina, R.; Amaranthus, M.P. 2004. Response of 

ectomycorrhizal fungus sporocarp production to varying levels and patterns of 

green-tree retention. Forest Ecology and Management. 202(1–3): 337–354. 

Maguire, D.A.; Halpern, C.B.; Phillips, D.L. 2007. Changes in forest structure 

following variable-retention harvests in Douglas-fir dominated forests. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 242(2–3): 708–726.

Maguire, D.A.; Mainwaring, D.B.; Halpern, C.B. 2006. Stand dynamics after 

variable-retention harvesting in mature Douglas-fir forests of western North 

America. Allgemeine Forst Und Jagdzeitung. 177(6/7): 120–131.
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Maguire, C.C.; Manning, T.; West, S.D.; Gitzen, R.A. 2005. Green-tree 

retention in managed forests: post-harvest responses of salamanders. In: 

Peterson, C.E.; Maguire, D.A., eds. Balancing ecosystem values: innovative 

experiments for sustainable forestry. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-635. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station: 265–270.

Mori, A.S.; Kitagawa, R. 2014. Retention forestry as a major paradigm for 

safeguarding forest biodiversity in productive landscapes: a global meta-analysis. 

Biological Conservation. 175: 65–173.

Nelson, C.R.; Halpern, C.B. 2005a. Edge-related responses of understory plants 

to aggregated retention harvest in the Pacific Northwest. Ecological Applications. 

15(1): 196–209. 

Nelson, C.R.; Halpern, C.B. 2005b. Short-term effects of timber harvest and 

forest edges on ground-layer mosses and liverworts. Canadian Journal of Botany. 

83(6): 610–620.

O’Hara, K. 1998. Silviculture for structural diversity: a new look at multiaged 

systems. Journal of Forestry. 96(7): 4–10.

Perry, D.A.; Amaranthus, M.P.; Borchers, J.G.; Borchers, S.L.; Brainerd, R.E. 

1989. Bootstrapping in ecosystems. BioScience. 39(4): 230–237.

Poage, N.J.; Anderson, P.D. 2007. Large-scale silviculture experiments of western 

Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-713. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

44 p.

Progar, R.A.; Schowalter, T.D. 2002. Canopy arthropod assemblages along a 

precipitation and latitudinal gradient among Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii

forests in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Ecography. 25(2): 129–138.

Progar, R.A.; Schowalter, T.D.; Work, T. 1999. Arboreal invertebrate responses 

to varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention in Northwestern forests. 

Northwest Science. 73(Special Issue): 77–86.

Ribe, R.G. 2005a. Comparing changes in scenic beauty produced by greentree retention harvests, thinnings and clearcuts: evidence from three Pacific 

Northwest experiments. In: Peterson, C.E.; Maguire, D.A., eds. Balancing 

ecosystem values: innovative experiments for sustainable forestry. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-635. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 137–145.
39

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Ribe, R.G. 2005b. Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista 

views: the interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape. Landscape 

and Urban Planning. 73(4): 277–293.

Ribe, R.G. 2006. Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest: 

information effects and acceptability distribution analysis. Journal of 

Environmental Psychology. 26(2): 100–115.

Ribe, R.G. 2009. In-stand scenic beauty of variable retention harvests and mature 

forests in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: the effects of basal area, density, retention 

pattern and down wood. Journal of Environmental Management. 91(1): 245–260.

Ribe, R.G.; Ford, R.M.; Williams, K.J.H. 2013. Clearfell controversies 

and alternative timber harvest designs: how acceptability perceptions vary 

between Tasmania and the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Journal of Environmental 

Management. 114: 46–62. 

Rosenvald, R.; Lõhmus A. 2008. For what, when, and where is green-tree 

retention better than clear-cutting? A review of the biodiversity aspects. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 255(1): 1–15.

Schowalter, T.D.; Zhang, Y.-L.; Progar, R.A. 2005. Canopy arthropod response 

to density and distribution of green trees retained after partial harvest. Ecological 

Applications. 15(5): 1594–1603.

Siira-Pietikäinen, A.; Haimi, J.; Siitonen, J. 2003. Short-term responses of soil 

macroarthopod community to clear felling and alternative forest regeneration 

methods. Forest Ecology and Management. 172(2–3): 339–353.

Strayer, D.J.; Glitzenstein, S.; Jones, C.G.; Kolasa, J.; Likens, G.E.; 

McDonnell, M.J.; Parker, G.; Pickett, S.T.A. 1986. Long-term ecological 

studies: an illustrated account of their design, operation, and importance to 

ecology. Institute of Ecosystem Studies Occasional Publications 1. 38 p.

Sullivan, T.P.; Sullivan, D.S. 2001. Influence of variable retention harvest on 

forest ecosystems. II. Diversity and population dynamics of small mammals. 

Journal of Applied Ecology. 38(6): 1234–1252.

Swanson, F.J.; Franklin, J.F. 1992. New Forestry principles from ecosystem 

analysis of Pacific Northwest forests. Ecological Applications. 2(3): 262–274. 

Swanson, M.E.; Franklin, J.F.; Beschta, R.L.; Crisafulli, C.M.; DellaSala, 

D.A.; Hutto, R.L.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Swanson, F.J. 2011. The forgotten 

stage of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. Frontiers 

in Ecology and the Environment. 9(2): 117–125.
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Swanson, M.E.; Studevant, N.M.; Campbell, J.L.; Donato, D.C. 2014. Biological 

associates of early-seral pre-forest in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 324: 160–171.

Tittler, R.; Hannon, S.J.; Norton, M.R. 2001. Residual tree retention ameliorates 

short-term effects of clear-cutting on some boreal songbirds. Ecological 

Applications. 11(6): 1656–1666.

Tuchmann, E.T. 1995. Timber supply and the President’s Northwest Forest Plan: 

trials and triumphs. Journal of Forestry. 93(7): 6–10. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of decision for 

amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning 

documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. [Place of publication 

unknown]. 74 p. [plus attachment A: standards and guidelines].

Urgenson, L.S.; Halpern, C.B.; Anderson, P.D. 2013a. Twelve-year responses of 

planted and naturally regenerating conifers to variable-retention harvest in the 

Pacific Northwest, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 43(1): 46–55. 

Urgenson, L.S.; Halpern, C.B.; Anderson, P.D. 2013b. Level and pattern of 

overstory retention influence rates and forms of tree mortality in mature, 

coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 308: 116–127.

Washington Department of Natural Resources [WDNR]. 1997. Final habitat 

conservation plan. Olympia, WA. 83 p. https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/lm_

hcp_plan_1997.pdf?ksaik4z. (17 October 2019).

Whyte, B.J. 2018. Long-term influence of retained forest aggregates on conifer 

regeneration in harvest units of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington. 44 p. M.S. thesis.

Whyte, B.J.; Halpern, C.B. 2019. Forest aggregates influence conifer recruitment 

and height growth in a long-term variable-retention experiment. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 441: 42–56.

Wilk, R.J. 2019. Effects of variable-retention treatments on numbers of singing 

small passerine birds in Pacific Northwest forests. Northwestern Naturalist. 

100(1): 60–70.

Wilk, R.J.; Harrington, T.B.; Gitzen, R.A.; Maguire, C.C. 2015. Forest-floor 

disturbance reduces chipmunk (Tamias spp.) abundance two years after variableretention harvest of Pacific Northwestern forests. Northwest Science. 89(1): 75–92.
41

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Appendix 1: Publications, Dissertations, and Theses 

From the DEMO Study, 1996–2018 

Citations are arranged chronologically within each category.

History, Overview, and Synthesis

Abbott, R.S.; White, J.D.; Woodard, B.L. 1999. The benefits and challenges of 

large-scale silvicultural experiments: perspectives from forest managers on the 

Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) study. Northwest 

Science. 73(Special Issue): 118–125.

Aubry, K.B.; Amaranthus, M.P.; Halpern, C.B.; White, J.D.; Woodard, B.L.; 

Peterson, C.E.; Lagoudakis, C.A.; Horton, A.J. 1999. Evaluating the effects 

of varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention: experimental design of the 

DEMO study. Northwest Science. 73(Special Issue): 12–26. 

Franklin, J.F.; Norris, L.A.; Berg, D.R.; Smith, G.R. 1999. The history 

of DEMO: an experiment in regeneration harvest of northwestern forest 

ecosystems. Northwest Science. 73(Special Issue): 3–11. 

Aubry, K.B.; Halpern, C.B.; Maguire, D.A. 2004. Ecological effects of variableretention harvests in the northwestern United States: the DEMO study. Forest 

Snow and Landscape Research. 78(1): 119–134.

Maguire, D.A.; Canavan, S.; Halpern, C.B.; Aubry, K.B. 2005. Fate of taxa after 

variable-retention harvesting in Douglas-fir forests of the northwestern United 

States. In: Peterson, C.E.; Maguire, D.A., eds. Balancing ecosystem values: 

innovative experiments for sustainable forestry. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-635. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station: 271–279.

Thompson, J. 2007. Green-tree retention in harvest units: boon or bust for 

biodiversity? Science Findings 96. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 6 p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/sciencef/scifi96.pdf.

Aubry, K.B.; Halpern, C.B.; Peterson, C.E. 2009. Variable-retention harvests in 

the Pacific Northwest: a review of short-term findings from the DEMO study. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 258(4): 398–408.

Peterson, C.E.; Anderson, P.D. 2009. Large-scale interdisciplinary experiments 

inform current and future forestry management options in the U.S. Pacific 

Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 258(4): 409–414.
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Disturbance and Microclimate

Halpern, C.B.; McKenzie, D. 2001. Disturbance and post-harvest ground 

conditions in a structural retention experiment. Forest Ecology and Management. 

154(1–2): 215–225. 

Heithecker, T.D. 2005. Variation in microclimate associated with dispersedretention harvests in coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: 

University of Washington. 44 p. M.S. thesis. 

Heithecker, T.D.; Halpern, C.B. 2006. Variation in microclimate associated with 

dispersed-retention harvests in coniferous forests of western Washington. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 226(1): 60–71.

Heithecker, T.D.; Halpern, C.B. 2007. Edge-related gradients in microclimate in 

forest aggregates following structural retention harvests in western Washington. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 248(3): 163–173.

Overstory and Understory Vegetation

Pipp, A.K. 1998. Effects of forest age versus forest structure on epiphytic lichen 

biomass and diversity. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 84 p. M.S. thesis.

Zenner, E.K. 1998. A new index for describing the structural complexity of forests. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 177 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Halpern, C.B.; Evans, S.A.; Nelson, C.R.; McKenzie, D.; Liguori, D.A.; 

Hibbs, D.E.; Halaj, M.G. 1999. Response of forest vegetation to varying levels 

and patterns of green-tree retention: an overview of a long-term experiment. 

Northwest Science. 73(Special Issue): 27–44.

McKenzie, D.; Halpern, C.B.; Nelson, C.R. 2000. Overstory influences on 

herb and shrub communities in mature forests of western Washington, USA. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 30(10): 1655–1666.

Winter, L.E. 2000. Five centuries of structural development in an old-growth 

Douglas-fir stand in the Pacific Northwest: a reconstruction from tree-ring 

records. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 134 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Zenner, E.K.; Hibbs, D.E. 2000. A new method for modeling the heterogeneity 

of forest structure. Forest Ecology and Management. 129(1–3): 75–87.

Pipp, A.K.; Henderson, C.; Callaway, R.M. 2001. Effects of forest age and forest 

structure on epiphytic lichen biomass and diversity in a Douglas-fir forest. 

Northwest Science. 75(1): 12–24. 
43

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Keyes, C.R. 2002. Recruitment of ponderosa pine seedlings beneath partial 

overstories. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 193 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Moore, J.R.; Maguire, D.A.; Phillips, D.L.; Halpern, C.B. 2002. Effects of 

varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention on amount of harvesting 

damage. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 17(4): 202–206.

Winter, L.E.; Brubaker, L.B.; DeWitt, D.Q.; Franklin, J.F.; Miller, E.A. 

2002. Initiation of an old-growth Douglas-fir stand in the Pacific Northwest: 

a reconstruction from tree-ring records. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

32(6): 1039–1056.

Moore, J.R.; Mitchell, S.J.; Maguire, D.A.; Quine, C.P. 2003. Wind damage in 

alternative silvicultural systems: review and synthesis of previous studies. In: 

Ruck, B.; Kottmeier, C.; Mattheck, C.; Quine, C.; Willhelm, G., eds. Proceedings 

of the international conference: wind effects on trees. Karlsruhe, Germany: 

University of Karlsruhe: 191–198.

Nelson, C.R. 2004. Effects of timber harvest and forest edges on abundance, 

viability, and physiology of understory plants in Pseudotsuga forests of western 

Washington. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 97 p. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Halpern, C.B.; McKenzie, D.; Evans, S.A.; Maguire, D.A. 2005. Initial 

responses of forest understories to varying levels and patterns of green-tree 

retention. Ecological Applications. 15(1): 175–195.

Nelson, C.R.; Halpern, C.B. 2005a. Edge-related responses of understory plants 

to aggregated retention harvest in the Pacific Northwest. Ecological Applications. 

15(1): 196–209. 

Nelson, C.R.; Halpern, C.B. 2005b. Short-term effects of timber harvest and 

forest edges on ground-layer mosses and liverworts. Canadian Journal of Botany. 

83(6): 610–620.

Dovčiak, M.; Halpern, C.B.; Saracco, J.F.; Evans, S.A.; Liguori, D.A. 2006.

Persistence of ground-layer bryophytes in a structural retention experiment: 

initial effects of level and pattern of overstory retention. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research. 36(11): 3039–3052.

Maguire, D.A.; Mainwaring, D.B.; Halpern, C.B. 2006. Stand dynamics after 

variable-retention harvesting in mature Douglas-fir forests of western North 

America. Allgemeine Forst Und Jagdzeitung. 177: 120–131.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Maguire, D.A.; Halpern, C.B.; Phillips, D.L. 2007. Changes in forest structure 

following variable-retention harvests in Douglas-fir dominated forests. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 242: 708–726.

Nelson, C.R.; Halpern, C.B.; Antos J.A. 2007. Variation in responses of late-seral 

herbs to disturbance and environmental stress. Ecology. 88(11): 2880–2890.

Michel, A.K.; Winter, S. 2009. Tree microhabitat structures as indicators of 

biodiversity in Douglas-fir forests of different stand ages and management 

histories in the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A. Forest Ecology and Management. 

257(6): 1453–1464.

Lam, T.Y. 2010. Exploration of statistical methods for synthesizing the effects 

of variable-retention harvesting on multiple taxa. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University. 262 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Evans, S.A.; Halpern, C.B.; McKenzie, D. 2012. The contributions of forest 

structure and substrate to bryophyte diversity and abundance in mature 

coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. The Bryologist. 115(2): 278–294.

Halpern, C.B.; Halaj, J.; Evans, S.A.; Dovčiak, M. 2012. Level and pattern 

of overstory retention interact to shape long-term responses of understories to 

timber harvest. Ecological Applications. 22(8): 2049–2064.

Lam, T.Y.; Maguire, D.A. 2012. Structural equation modeling: theory and 

applications in forest management. International Journal of Forestry Research. 

Article 263953. doi.org/10.1155/2012/263953.

Urgenson, L.S.; Halpern, C.B.; Anderson, P.D. 2013a. Twelve-year responses of 

planted and naturally regenerating conifers to variable-retention harvest in the 

Pacific Northwest, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 43(1): 46–55. 

Urgenson, L.S.; Halpern, C.B.; Anderson, P.D. 2013b. Level and pattern of 

overstory retention influence rates and forms of tree mortality in mature, 

coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest, U.S.A. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 308: 116–127.

Halpern, C.B.; Dovčiak, M.; Urgenson, L.S.; Evans, S.A. 2014. Substrates 

mediate responses of forest bryophytes to a gradient in overstory retention. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 44(8): 855–866.

Whyte, B.J. 2018. Long-term influence of retained forest aggregates on conifer 

regeneration in harvest units of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington. 44 p. M.S. thesis.
45

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Whyte, B.J.; Halpern, C.B. 2019. Forest aggregates influence conifer recruitment 

and height growth in a long-term variable-retention experiment. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 441: 42–56.

Amphibians, Forest-Floor Small Mammals, Arboreal Rodents, 

Bats, and Diurnal Forest Birds

Thompson, R.L. 1996. Home range and habitat use of western red-backed voles in 

mature coniferous forests in the Oregon Cascades. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University. 88 p. M.S. thesis.

Brett, T.A. 1997. Habitat associations of woodpeckers at multiple scales in 

managed forests of the southern Oregon Cascades. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University. 95 p. M.S. thesis.

Feen, J.S. 1997. Winter den sites of northern flying squirrels in Douglas-fir forests 

of the south-central Oregon Cascades. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 

45 p. M.S. thesis.

Erickson, J.L. 1998. The influence of regional, landscape, and local habitat 

conditions on bat activity in forests of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: 

University of Washington. 152 p. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Gitzen, R.A. 1999. Small mammal responses to experimental forest gaps in the 

southern Washington Cascades. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 125 p. 

M.S. thesis. 

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; West, S.D.; Chambers, C.L.; McComb, W.C.; Manuwal, D.A.; 

Aubry, K.B.; Erickson, J.L.; Gitzen, R.A.; Leu, M. 1999. Assessing wildlife 

response to varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention in western Oregon 

and Washington. Northwest Science. 73(Special Issue): 45–63.

Manning, T.; Maguire, C.C. 1999. A new elevation record for the red tree vole 

in Oregon: implications for national forest management. American Midland 

Naturalist. 142(2): 421–423.

Gitzen, R.A.; West, S.D. 2000. Occurrences of the coast mole (Scapanus orarius 

orarius) in the southern Washington Cascades. Northwestern Naturalist. 81(2): 

65–66.

Leu, M. 2000. Breeding territory settlement patterns and mate choice in a 

monochromatic tyrannid flycatcher. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 

119 p. Ph.D. dissertation. 
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Erickson, J.L.; West, S.D. 2002. The influence of regional climate and 

nightly weather conditions on activity patterns of insectivorous bats. Acta 

Chiropterologica. 4(1): 17–24.

Gitzen, R.A.; West, S.D. 2002. Small mammal response to experimental canopy 

gaps in the southern Washington Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management. 

168(1–3): 189–201.

Jacobs, K.M. 2002. Response of small mammal mycophagy to varying levels 

and patterns of green-tree retention in mature forests of western Oregon and 

Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 97 p. M.S. thesis.

Maguire, C.C. 2002. Dead wood and the richness of small terrestrial vertebrates 

in southwestern Oregon. In: Shea, P.; Laudenslayer, W.; Weatherspoon, P.; 

Valentine, B., eds. Symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in 

western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-181. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 331–334.

McDade, K.A. 2002. Habitat relationships of small terrestrial vertebrates and 

invertebrates in managed forests in the southern Oregon Cascades. Corvallis, 

OR: Oregon State University. 212 p. M.S. thesis.

Erickson, J.L.; Adams, M.J. 2003. A comparison of bat activity at low and high 

elevations in the Black Hills of western Washington. Northwest Science. 77(2): 

126–130.

Erickson, J.L.; West, S.D. 2003. Associations of bats with local structure and 

landscape features of forested stands in western Oregon and Washington. 

Biological Conservation. 109(1): 95–102.

Manning, T.; Maguire, C.C.; Jacobs, K.M.; Luoma, D.L. 2003. Additional 

habitat, diet and range information for the white-footed vole (Arborimus albipes). 

American Midland Naturalist. 150(1): 116–123.

Waldien, D.L.; Cooley, M.M.; Weikel, J.; Hayes, J.P.; Maguire, C.C.; Manning, 

T.; Maier, T.; Maier, T.J. 2004. Incidental captures of birds in small mammal 

traps: a cautionary note for interdisciplinary studies. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 

32(4): 1260–1268.
47

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Maguire, C.C.; Manning, T.; West, S.D.; Gitzen, R.A. 2005. Green-tree 

retention in managed forests: post-harvest responses of salamanders. In: 

Peterson, C.E.; Maguire, D.A., eds. Balancing ecosystem values: innovative 

experiments for sustainable forestry. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-635. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station: 265–270.

McDade, K.A.; Maguire, C.C. 2005. Comparative effectiveness of three 

techniques for salamander and gastropod land surveys. American Midland 

Naturalist. 153(2): 309–320.

Gitzen, R.A. 2006. Responses of small mammals to green-tree retention harvests 

in forests of western Oregon and Washington. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington. 128 p. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Mayrhofer, M. 2006. Spatial point processes and brown creepers (Certhia 

americana): estimating habitat use of a silvicultural experiment. Seattle, WA: 

University of Washington. 59 p. M.S. thesis. 

Gitzen, R.A.; West, S.D.; Maguire, C.C.; Manning, T.; Halpern, C.B. 2007.

Response of terrestrial small mammals to varying amounts and patterns 

of green-tree retention in Pacific Northwest forests. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 251(3): 142–155.

Jacobs, K.M.; Luoma, D.L. 2008. Small mammal mycophagy response to 

variations in green-tree retention. Journal of Wildlife Management. 72(8): 

1747–1755.

Thompson, R.L.; Chambers, C.L.; McComb, B.C. 2009. Home range and habitat 

of western red-backed voles in the Oregon Cascades. Northwest Science. 83(1): 

46–56.

Holloway, G.L.; Smith, W.P.; Halpern, C.B.; Gitzen, R.A.; Maguire, C.C.; 

West, S.D. 2012. Influence of forest structure and experimental green-tree 

retention on northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) abundance. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 285: 187–194. 

Wilk, R.J.; Harrington, T.B.; Gitzen, R.A.; Maguire, C.C. 2015. Forest-floor 

disturbance reduces chipmunk (Tamias spp.) abundance two years after variableretention harvest of Pacific Northwestern Forests. Northwest Science. 89(1): 

75–92.
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Wilk, R.J. 2019. Effects of variable-retention treatments on numbers of singing 

small passerine birds in Pacific Northwest forests. Northwestern Naturalist. 

100(1): 60–70.

Ectomycorrhizal Fungi

Cazares, E.; Luoma, D.L.; Amaranthus, M.P.; Chambers, C.L.; Lehmkuhl, 

J.F. 1999. Interaction of fungal sporocarp production with small mammal 

abundance and diet in Douglas-fir stands of the southern Cascade Range. 

Northwest Science. 73(Special Issue): 64–76.

Stockdale, C.A. 2001. Green-tree retention and ectomycorrhiza legacies: the spatial 

influences of retention trees on mycorrhiza community structure and diversity. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 78 p. M.S. thesis.

Jacobs, K.M. 2002. Response of small mammal mycophagy to varying levels 

and patterns of green-tree retention in mature forests of western Oregon and 

Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 97 p. M.S. thesis.

Luoma, D.L.; Eberhart, J.L.; Molina, R.; Amaranthus, M.P. 2004. Response of 

ectomycorrhizal fungus sporocarp production to varying levels and patterns of 

green-tree retention. Forest Ecology and Management. 202(1–3): 337–354. 

Kolaczkowksi, O. 2005. Effects of spatially dispersed green-tree retention on 

ectomycorrhiza diversity. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 60 p. M.S. 

thesis.

Luoma, D.L.; Eberhart, J. 2005. Results from green-tree retention experiments: 

ectomycorrhizal fungi. In: Peterson, C.E.; Maguire, D.A., eds. Balancing 

ecosystem values: innovative experiments for sustainable forestry. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-635. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 257–264.

Luoma, D.L.; Stockdale, C.A.; Molina, R.; Eberhart, J.L. 2006. The spatial 

influence of Pseudotsuga menziesii retention trees on ectomycorrhiza diversity. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36(10): 2561–2573.

Foliage-, Bark-, and Litter-Dwelling Arthropods

Progar, R.A.; Schowalter, T.D.; Work, T. 1999. Arboreal invertebrate responses 

to varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention in Northwestern forests. 

Northwest Science. 73(Special Issue): 77–86.
49

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Work, T. 2000. Edge effects of clearcut harvesting on ground arthropod species 

composition and predator community structure in old-growth Douglas-fir forests. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 98 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Progar, R.A.; Schowalter, T.D. 2002. Canopy arthropod assemblages along a 

precipitation and latitudinal gradient among Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii

forests in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Ecography. 25(2): 129–138.

Schowalter, T.D.; Zhang, Y.L.; Progar, R.A. 2005. Canopy arthropod response to 

density and distribution of green trees retained after partial harvest. Ecological 

Applications. 15(5): 1594–1603.

Halaj, J.; Halpern, C.B.; Yi, H. 2008. Responses of litter-dwelling spiders and 

carabid beetles to varying levels and patterns of green-tree retention. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 255(3–4): 887–900.

Halaj, J.; Halpern, C.B.; Yi, H. 2009. Effects of green-tree retention on 

abundance and guild composition of corticolous arthropods. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 258(5): 850–859.

Public Perceptions (Aesthetics)

McDade, K. 1999. The new Northwest? Regional perspectives of national forest 

management by recreation type, place of residence, and time spent in the Pacific 

Northwest. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. 97 p. M.S. thesis.

Ribe, R.G. 1999. Regeneration harvests versus clearcuts: public views of the 

acceptability and aesthetics of Northwest Forest Plan harvests. Northwest 

Science. 73(Special Issue): 102–117.

Ribe, R.G. 2002. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? 

The influence of environmental attitudes on perceptions of forest scenes. 

Environment and Behavior. 34: 757–780.

Ribe, R.G.; Armstrong, E.T.; Gobster, P.H. 2002. Scenic vistas and the 

changing policy landscape: visualizing and testing the role of visual 

resources in ecosystem management. Landscape Journal. 21(1): 42–66.

Ribe, R.G.; Matteson, M.Y. 2002. Views of old forestry and new among reference 

groups in the Pacific Northwest. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 17(4): 

173–182.
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Ribe, R.G. 2005a. Comparing changes in scenic beauty produced by greentree retention harvests, thinnings and clearcuts: evidence from three Pacific 

Northwest experiments. In: Peterson, C.E.; Maguire, D.A., eds. Balancing 

ecosystem values: innovative experiments for sustainable forestry. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-635. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 137–145.

Ribe, R.G. 2005b. Aesthetic perceptions of green-tree retention harvests in vista 

views: the interaction of cut level, retention pattern and harvest shape. Landscape 

and Urban Planning. 73(4): 277–293.

Ribe, R.G. 2006. Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest: 

information effects and acceptability distribution analysis. Journal of 

Environmental Psychology. 26(2): 100–115.

Ribe, R.G. 2009. In-stand scenic beauty of variable retention harvests and mature 

forests in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: the effects of basal area, density, retention 

pattern and down wood. Journal of Environmental Management. 91(1): 245–260.

Ribe, R.G.; Ford, R.M.; Williams, K.J.H. 2013. Clearfell controversies 

and alternative timber harvest designs: how acceptability perceptions vary 

between Tasmania and the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Journal of Environmental 

Management. 114: 46–62. 
51

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Appendix 2: Locations and Navigational Aids to 

and Within Treatment Units at the Watson Falls 

Experimental Block in Oregon 

Orthophotos are from 2011. Unit labels are (1) 100% = unharvested control, (2) 

75%A = 75 percent aggregated retention, (3) 40%D = 40 percent dispersed retention, (4) 40%A = 40 percent aggregated retention, (5) 15%D = 15 percent dispersed 

retention, and (6) 15%A = 15 percent aggregated retention. Grid points in each 

treatment unit are identified by 3-character codes indicating treatment number 

(1 through 6, as listed above), row (letter), and column (number); two corner grid 

points are labelled here. Orthophotos are followed by road and topographic maps, 

detailed driving directions to the treatment units, and diagrams of the sampling 

grids, which include grid-point identifiers and the locations of aggregates (40%A, 

15%A) or gaps (75%A).
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

0 0 0.25 .5 1

Kilometers

75%A

15%D

15%A

Watson Falls (1 of 3)

5A1 5G9

2I7

2A1

6A1

6G9

Highway 138

USFS Road 10

USFS Road 300

USFS Road 350
53

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

0 0 0.25 .5 1

Kilometers

100%

40%A

Watson Falls (2 of 3)

1A1

1I7

4A1

4I7

Highway 138 USFS Road 365

USFS Road 999
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

0 0 0.25 .5 1

Kilometers

40%D

Watson Falls (3 of 3)

3A1

3I7

USFS Road 500

USFS Road 500

USFS Road 200

USFS Road 3401

USFS Road 3401
55
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
57

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
59

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Driving Directions to the Demonstration of Ecosystem 

Management Options (DEMO) Study Treatment Units in the 

Watson Falls Experimental Block. 

Directions are not provided for 75%A because it was not sampled after the initial 

posttreatment measurements were made; its location is depicted in the orthophotos 

and topographic maps.

100% (WF1) and 40%A (WF4). Units are adjacent on opposite sides of Road 365.

100% (WF1)

Mileage Location

0 Exit northeast from Highway 138 onto Road 365 (Mowich Connect Road).

1.2 Stop at intersection of Roads 365 and 999; WF1 is on the west side of Road 365.

Additional notes: Enter unit from the east (Road 365) to reach the “7” grid line; it 

is much closer from the road than is the “A” grid from Road 999. Enter at the first 

DEMO sign along the road on the east side of WF1; it lies east of plot 1I7. There are 

no DEMO signs on the north side of unit along Road 999.

40%A (WF4)

Mileage Location

0 Exit northeast from Highway 138 onto Road 365 (Mowich Connect Road).

1.2 Stop at intersection of Roads 365 and 999; WF4 is on the east side of Road 365.

40%D (WF3)—two routes

Route 1. From the east (Diamond Lake)

Mileage Location

— Exit to the north from Highway 138 onto Road 2610 to Lemolo Lake (paved).

0 Pass turnoff to Poole Creek Campground; at Y-intersection with Road 3401 (at 

Lemolo Resort Area) bear to the left onto Road 3401 (set mileage to 0 here).

3.1 Bear left at the Y-intersection with Road 500 (not signed); take Road 500.

3.2 Pass Road 590 on the left (barricaded, with sign).

4.6 Turn left onto Road 581 (with sign) which continues into unit; it is possible 

to drive over the steep dip in the road but not necessary, given its proximity 

to plots.
60

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

40%D (WF3)—two routes (continued)

Route 2. From the west (Toketee Ranger Station)

Mileage Location

— From Toketee Ranger Station, return to Highway 138; turn right onto Road 34 

(Toketee-Rigdon Road)

0 Road 34; travel northeast along the west side of Toketee Lake.

1.3 Pass turnoff to Toketee Campground.

2.3 Turn right onto Road 3401.

3.0 Pass over Umpqua River bridge.

8.6 Turn right onto Road 200.

9.5 Turn left onto Road 500 (note many DEMO signs on right; southwest side of unit).

10.3 Turn right onto Road 581 (with sign) which continues into unit; it is possible 

to drive over the steep dip in the road but not necessary, given its proximity 

to plots.

Additional note: DEMO signs along 500 Road (southwest side of unit).

15%D (WF5)

Mileage Location

0 Exit south from Highway 138 onto Road 37 (signs for Watson Falls picnic 

ground).

1.2 Right on Road 010 (Fish Creek Forebay Road).

2.0 Pass intersection with Road 350 on the left (350 is blocked by a barrier).

3.1 Left onto Road 300 (Brink Road).

3.8, 3.9 Pass first and second DEMO signs along southwest edge of WF2.

4.0 Pass northwest edge of WF6 cleared area.

4.3 Left onto Road 350, Brink Connect Road (signed); stop at barrier.

4.4 Walk up Road 350 to barrier; Road 352, to the right, lies along southwest edge 

of WF5; Road 353, to the left, goes into WF6.

Additional notes: Good access along southwest edge of unit (along Road 352). 

Along roadside, orange flagging leads to plot 5E1. Dense, tall, spiny Ceanothus

is present: advise long sleeves and leather gloves. Transect posts were established 

at all grid points (i.e., in all tree plots) prior to harvest, but the posts are no longer 

maintained in these “alternate” plots.
61

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

15%A (WF6)

Mileage Location

0 Exit south from Highway 138 onto Road 37 (signs for Watson Falls picnic 

ground).

1.2 Right on Road 010 (Fish Creek Forebay Road).

2.0 Pass intersection with Road 350 on the left (350 is blocked by a barrier).

3.1 Left onto Road 300 (Brink Road).

3.8, 3.9 Pass first and second DEMO signs along southwest edge of WF2.

4.0 Pass northwest edge of WF6 cleared area.

4.3 Left onto Road 350, Brink Connect Road (signed); stop at barrier.

4.4 Walk up Road 350 to barrier; Road 352, to the right, lies along southwest edge 

of WF5; Road 353, to the left, goes into WF6.

Additional notes: Good access along gravel Road 353, which takes off to the 

northwest from the intersection of Roads 350 and 352 (essentially the northwest 

corner of WF5). Dense, tall, spiny Ceanothus is present: advise long sleeves and 

leather gloves. Extremely dense white fir advanced regeneration in/adjacent to the 

two aggregates.
62

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
63

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
64

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
65

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
66

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
67

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
68

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Appendix 3: Locations and Navigational Aids to and 

Within Treatment Units at the Dog Prairie Experimental 

Block in Oregon 

Orthophoto is from 2011. Unit labels are (1) 100% = unharvested control, (2) 75%A 

= 75 percent aggregated retention, (3) 40%D = 40 percent dispersed retention, (4) 

40%A = 40 percent aggregated retention, (5) 15%D = 15 percent dispersed retention, and (6) 15%A = 15 percent aggregated retention. Grid points in each treatment 

unit are identified by 3-character codes indicating treatment number (1 through 

6, as listed above), row (letter), and column (number); two corner grid points are 

labelled here. Orthophotos are followed by a road map, detailed driving directions 

to the treatment units, and diagrams of the sampling grids, which include grid-point 

identifiers and the locations of aggregates (40%A, 15%A) or gaps (75%A). 
69

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

0 0 0.25 .5 1

Kilometers

100%

75%A

40%D

40%A

15%D

15%A

Dog Prairie

1A1

1I7

5A1

5I7

2I7

2A1

4A1

4I7

6A1

6G9

3A1

3I7

USFS Road 500

USFS Road 502

USFS Road 3704

USFS Road 600

USFS Road 603

Landing
70

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
71

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Driving Directions to the Demonstration of Ecosystem 

Management Options (DEMO) Study Treatment Units in 

the Dog Prairie Experimental Block 

Directions are not provided for 75%A because it was not sampled after the initial 

posttreatment measurements were made; its location is depicted in the orthophoto 

and road map.

100% (DP1), 15%D (DP5), and 40%A (DP4). 

Units all accessible from the same point.

Mileage Location

0 Exit south from Highway 138 onto Road 37 (signs for Watson Falls picnic 

ground).

1.2 Pass Road 010 on the right.

2.8 Turn left (east) onto Road 3701 (Big Camas Road).

5.4 Turn right (south) onto Road 3704.

6.7, 8.3, 9.6 Pass Road 100 on left (6.7 miles), pass Road 230 on left (8.3 miles), cross 

Watson Creek (signed; 9.6 miles).

10.7 Sharp curve through complex intersection with Road 500 and Road 502 (502 

goes to the top of DP3).

12.9 Turn sharply to the right onto Road 600 (no sign but two metal gate posts; 

road susceptible to washout).

13.8 Arrive at open landing at the ridge top.

Additional notes: To access DP1 and DP5, walk along Road 603 to the east. DP1

has as two DEMO signs along road; DP5 has one DEMO sign along the road. DP1

has pink flagging from road to plots 1A2 and 1B2. Walk further to access DP5. At 

the far end of DP5, there is a sturdy survey pin at the road edge (south side) “200 

deg, 233 ft to plot 5A7.” Plot 5A7 is not sampled (lies in a small forested [nonthinned] patch retained because of the presence of a rare fungus). To access DP4, 

walk west along Road 604 (no DEMO signs); easy access and visible from the road.
72

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

40%D (DP3)

Mileage Location

0 Exit south from Highway 138 onto Road 37 (signs for Watson Falls picnic 

ground).

1.2 Pass Road 010 on the right (road to WF2, WF4, and WF6).

2.8 Turn left (east) onto Road 3701 (Big Camas Road).

5.4 Turn right (south) onto Road 3704.

6.7, 8.3, 9.6 Pass Road 100 on the left (6.7 miles), pass Road 230 on the left (8.3 miles), 

cross over Watson Creek (signed (9.6 miles).

10.7 Turn sharply to the left onto Road 502 at complex intersection of Roads 

3704, 500, and 502 (just beyond sharp curve in Road 3704). Do not take 

what appears to be the main graveled road (Road 500). Road 502 is 90 

degrees to the left of Road 500 and is poorly signed; pink flagging hung on 

trees into Road 502.

10.9 Park at landing on ridgetop; walk ridge line through top of unit (five DEMO 

signs).

Additional note: Road runs through upper row of unit for most of the distance.

15%A (DP6)

Mileage Location

0 Exit south from Highway 138 onto Road 37 (signs for Watson Falls picnic 

ground).

1.2 Pass Road 010 on the right.

2.8 Turn left (east) onto Road 3701 (Big Camas Road).

3.7 Turn right (south) onto Road 480 (Fish Cutoff Road). Note: large campsite on 

east side of road ~0.7 miles south of intersection with Road 3701.

4.9 Turn left onto Road 500 (left fork of Y).

7.2 Pass Road 530 on the right (some side roads are not signed).

8.4 Unit is above the road on the left; no DEMO signs.

Additional notes: Flagged pink from road to plot 6G3; good access to lower aggregate (plot 6G9) from far end of road.
73

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
74

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
75

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
76

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
77

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
78

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
79

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Appendix 4: Locations and Navigational Aids to and 

Within Treatment Units at the Butte Experimental Block 

in Washington 

Orthophoto is from 2011. Unit labels are (1) 100% = unharvested control, (2) 75%A 

= 75 percent aggregated retention, (3) 40%D = 40 percent dispersed retention, 

(4) 40%A = 40 percent aggregated retention, (5) 15%D = 15 percent dispersed 

retention, and (6) 15%A = 15 percent aggregated retention. Grid points in each 

treatment unit are identified by 3-character codes indicating treatment number 

(1 through 6, as listed above), row (letter), and column (number); two corner grid 

points are labelled here. Orthophotos are followed by topographic maps, detailed 

driving directions to the treatment units, and diagrams of the sampling grids, 

which include grid-point identifiers and the locations of aggregates (40%A, 15%A) 

or gaps (75%A).
80

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

0 0 0.25 .5 1

Kilometers

100%

75%A

40%D

40%A

15%D

15%A

Butte

1A1

1I7

5A1

5I7

2I7

2A1

4A1

4G9

6A1 6G9

3A1

3G9

USFS Road 21

USFS Road 7807

Spur road
81
82

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Driving Directions to the Demonstration of Ecosystem 

Management Options (DEMO) Study Treatment Units in 

the Butte Experimental Block 

Directions are not provided for 75%A because it was not sampled after the initial 

posttreatment measurements were made; its location is depicted in the orthophotos 

and topographic maps.

All units are accessed from Road 21, a short distance from Adams Fork Campground. All entry points are marked with DEMO research signs and red flagging 

around tree boles. Most have white Carsonite posts with a unit number (“U#”). 

Mileage listed is from the junction of Roads 21 and 56. Adams Fork Campground 

is 0.1 mile from the junction. Units are listed below in order of increasing distance 

from the junction.

Mileage Location

0 Junction Road 21/56.

1.0 Milepost 23 on brown road marker.

1.9 NF-22 (signed 7800).

2.0 Milepost 22 (numbers descend with distance from Adams Fork Campground).

3.0 15%A (BU6). 30 m before milepost 21. Trail flagged in red over windthrow 

to unit boundary. Trail ends at unit boundary downslope of 6G4 (lower 

right edge of aggregate). Dense vegetation between unit boundary and that 

grid point. Walk along unit boundary (forest edge) to the west; begin at plot 

6C1 (cut area) or 6G2 (lower left edge of patch). Note: steep in parts of the 

lower aggregate with lots of down wood; dense vegetation lower on the slope 

in the harvested area, including tall bracken and considerable Douglas-fir 

regeneration. Slow-going in portions of the harvest matrix. 

3.1 100% (BU1). Wooden, leaning post; no Carsonite post indicating BU1. 

3.8 Road 216 to the R (at this point, still below BU1).

4.0 15%D (BU5). Carsonite post. Once at the edge of the unit, path to plot 5I7 is 

flagged with orange- and white-striped tape; plot is upslope of large-diameter 

5-m-tall cedar snag. Especially steep, unstable and brushy in parts.
83

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Mileage Location

4.7 40%A (BU4). Carsonite post, high above road. See directions above using spur 

road. (Note: southwest and center aggregate plus adjacent harvested areas 

are locations of a previous study of edge gradients. From the center of each 

aggregate there are sets of 1 × 5 m sample quadrats oriented perpendicular 

to four radii of the aggregate—these are marked with PVC, rebar, orange 

flagging, and nails. Try to avoid causing damage).

4.7+ 40%D (BU3). Cross Pimlico Creek on Road 21, then left onto Road 7807 

(signed to Mud Lake). Road is washed out almost just past the gate; may be 

passable with 4-wheel drive/high clearance. Otherwise hike. Parking area/

turnaround on left side of road at the entry point to unit, ~1.5 miles up Road 

7807. DEMO sign with red flagging at entry point. Take flagged trail across 

Pimlico Creek. Trail flagged red for about 300 yards to the southeast corner 

of the unit (grid point 3G9). Note: although a dispersed unit, there is a small, 

linear “reserve” in the center, necessary to protect a perennial stream (U.S. 

Forest Service regulations); blue boundary signs on trees mark the perimeter 

of the reserve.
84

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
85

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
86

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
87

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
88

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
89

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
90

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Appendix 5: Locations and Navigational Aids to and 

Within Treatment Units at the Little White Salmon 

Experimental Block in Washington 

Orthophoto is from 2011. Unit labels are (1) 100% = unharvested control, (2) 75%A 

= 75 percent aggregated retention, (3) 40%D = 40 percent dispersed retention, 

(4) 40%A = 40 percent aggregated retention, (5) 15%D = 15 percent dispersed 

retention, and (6) 15%A = 15 percent aggregated retention. Grid points in each 

treatment unit are identified by 3-character codes indicating treatment number 

(1 through 6, as listed above), row (letter), and column (number); two corner grid 

points are labelled here. Orthophotos are followed by topographic maps, detailed 

driving directions to the treatment units, and diagrams of the sampling grids, which 

include grid-point identifiers and the locations of aggregates (40%A, 15%A) or gaps 

(75%A). 
91

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

0 0 0.25 .5 1

Kilometers

100%

75%A

40%D

40%A

15%D

15%A

Little White Salmon

1A1

1I7

5A1

5G9

2I7

2A1

4A1

4I7

6A1

6G9

3H8 3A1

USFS Road 40

USFS Road 50

USFS Road 66

USFS

Road 60

Trail access from

USFS Road 62

USFS Road 62
92

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
93

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
94

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Driving Directions to the Demonstration of Ecosystem 

Management Options (DEMO) Study Treatment Units in 

the Little White Salmon Experimental Block.

Directions are not provided for 75%A because it was not sampled after the initial 

posttreatment measurements were made; its location is depicted in the orthophotos 

and topographic maps. 

100% (LW1), 40%D (LW3), 40%A (LW4), and 15%D (LW5) 

These four units are accessed from Road 66. It is a long drive plus hiking time from 

Wind River Experimental Forest to LW4 (1.5 hours each way). Be prepared to set 

trip meter to 0 at Cook-Underwood Road.

Mileage Location

— From Wind River Experimental Forest, head south on Wind River Road; 

in Carson, make a left onto Hot Spring Road, then a left onto Highway 14 

(Columbia River Gorge).

— On Highway 14, travel about 7 miles to Cook-Underwood Road; left onto CookUnderwood Road.

0 At Cook-Underwood Road, set trip meter to 0.

4.9 Left onto Willard Road.

6.3 Straight on Oklahoma Road (T-intersection with another arm of Willard Road).

7.4 Junction of Oklahoma Road and NF-66; turn left onto Road 66 and travel 7.5 

miles to units.

14.9 Turn right onto Road 60 to park.

40%D (LW3). Four red flags mark entry to unit.

100% (LW1). Three red flags at roadside mark trail to northwest corner of unit; 

flagged in red along ridgeline from the road. 

15.0 15%D (LW5). Drive 0.1 miles up Road 60 from the intersection with Road 

66. Red flagging on roadside (right) marks the trail. Hike about 300 yards to 

lower edge of unit; DEMO research sign on tree at edge. (Light pink flagging 

to plot 5G5).

15.6 40%A (LW4). Accessed from Road 62. Drive 0.6 miles past LW5 access point 

to intersection with Road 62. Right onto Road 62. Road is heavily rutted; drive 

with wheels on raised middle and edge of road bed. Edges of road may need to 

be brushed. Drive about 0.5 mile to large opening at end of Road 62. Trail to 

LW4 is on the right. Hike down, then up brushed ridgeline to connect to west 

corner of LW4 (plot 4A7). Dense vine maple between unit boundary and upper 

aggregate; walk to aggregate to locate first plot and work from there.
95

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

15%A (LW6) 

It is a long drive time from Wind River Experimental Forest to this isolated unit. Be 

prepared to set trip meter to 0 at Cook-Underwood Road.

Mileage Location

— From Wind River Experimental Forest, head south on Wind River Road; 

in Carson, make a left onto Hot Spring Road, then a left onto Highway 14 

(Columbia River Gorge).

— On Highway 14, travel ~7 miles to Cook-Underwood Road; left onto CookUnderwood Road.

0 At Cook-Underwood Road, set trip meter to 0.

4.9 Left onto Willard Road.

6.3 Straight on Oklahoma Road (T-intersection with another arm of Willard Road)

7.4 Pass intersection with NF-66; continue straight on Oklahoma.

11.3 Cross Little White Salmon River and make a left (triangle intersection). No 

road sign, but probably Road 8031. Stay to the right (red flagging). Pass two 

roads on the left but stay right (on main road).

11.6 Sharp right on Road 020 into forest before gravel pit (flagged red on right side 

of road).

12.5 Right at intersection onto Road 040; brown Carsonite post flagged red.

13.8 Stop at grassy opening below cut bank (northeast corner of unit, plot 6G1). Turn 

vehicle around and park here; road not fully cleared beyond this point. Hike 

down road through mature forest bordering east edge of unit to opposite end 

for easy access to lower aggregate. Watch for red flagging on left side of road. 

Flagged upslope to plot 6G7 which is an edge point of the aggregate. Large 

Douglas-fir down along the contour below aggregate center (plot 6F7). Dense 

vine maple in harvest matrix; some windthrow in the aggregate. Aggregate 

in upper corner of unit appears even more compromised by windthrow along 

east edge.
96

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
97

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
98

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
99

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
100

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
101

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
102

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Appendix 6: Locations and Navigational Aids to 

and Within Treatment Units at the Paradise Hills 

Experimental Block in Washington

Orthophotos are from 2011. Unit labels are (1) 100% = unharvested control, (2) 

75%A = 75% aggregated retention, (3) 40%D = 40% dispersed retention, (4) 40%A 

= 40% aggregated retention, (5) 15%D = 15% dispersed retention, and (6) 15%A 

= 15% aggregated retention. Grid points in each treatment unit are identified by 

3-character codes indicating treatment number (1 through 6, as listed above), row 

(letter), and column (number); two corner grid points are labelled here. Orthophotos 

are followed by topographic maps, detailed driving directions to the treatment 

units, and diagrams of the sampling grids, which include grid-point identifiers and 

the locations of aggregates (40%A, 15%A) or gaps (75%A). 
103

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

0 0 0.25 .5 1

Kilometers

75%A

15%D

15%A

Paradise Hills (1 of 3)

5A1

5I7

2G9

2A1

6A1

6G9

USFS Road 113

USFS Road 3105

USFS 

Road 3107

USFS Road 115

USFS Road 3107

USFS Road 115
104

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

0 0 0.25 .5 1

Kilometers

40%A

Paradise Hills (2 of 3)

4A1

4H8

40%D

3A1

3G9

USFS Road 3050

Ro

USFS 

ad 605

USFS Road 3054

USFS Road 3054
105

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

0 0 0.25 .5 1

Kilometers

100%

Paradise Hills (3 of 3)

1A1

1H8

USFS Road 3105

USFS Road 3105
106

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
107

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
108

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
109

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Driving Directions to the Demonstration of Ecosystem 

Management Options (DEMO) Study Treatment Units in 

the Paradise Hills Experimental Block 

Directions are not provided for 75%A because it was not sampled after the initial 

posttreatment measurements were made; its location is depicted in the orthophotos 

and topographic maps.

A U. S. Forest Service (USFS) gate key is needed to access PH1 (100%) and PH4 

(40%A). There are gates to PH5 (15%D) and PH6 (15%A), but the district has been 

leaving these open. In 2015, however, gates that were supposed to be open were 

closed (and vice versa).

100% (PH1) 

Road is heavily rutted, narrow, and likely impassable. Plan on a long day with a 

1-mile hike along the road. Be prepared to set trip meter to 0 at Road 31.

Mileage Location

— From Wind River Experimental Forest, head north on Wind River Road 30. 

Drive about 12 miles to Paradise Creek Campground (right side of the road 

just past milepost 20). From the campground, it is 3.5 miles to Road 31 (left). 

0 Left onto Road 31 (major intersection with a brown sign “Road closed to 

wheeled vehicles Dec 1–Apr 1”). Set trip meter to 0.

4.7 Pass intersection with Road 3103 on right (not signed).

5.7 Junction of 3105 and 3107; right onto 3105 (red flagging; brown Carsonite road 

sign still present).

6.3 Reach USFS gate. Should be closed (need key) but was open in 2015.

8.6 Road deteriorates in area of plantation. Park where road runs southwest before 

large turn to the northwest. Hike up road (1+ mile). Tree flagged and spraypainted red at entry point to PH1. Enter from the north through timber (older 

forest) paralleling plantation. 
110

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

40%D (PH3) 

Be prepared to set trip meter to 0 at Paradise Creek Campground (just past milepost 

20). Open and easy to work in. Grid point labeled 3A9 on grid map should be 3E9.

Mileage Location

— From Wind River Experimental Forest, head north on Wind River Road 30 

about 12 miles to Paradise Creek Campground (right side of the road just past 

milepost 20). Set trip meter to 0.

0 Paradise Creek Campground.

6.7 Turn left onto Curly Creek Road (paved, major intersection).

7.0 Left onto Road 3050. Note: Road 3050 has many deep potholes—drive slowly.

8.1 Large trees down over road but vehicle passage possible (should have been 

cleared in 2016).

9.6 Junction with Road 605 to the left (steeply uphill)—heavily rutted road/skid 

road that forms the western boundary of PH3. Tall brown post/sign on left, 

blue recreation sign/arrow pointing up Road 605, brown Carsonite post at 

junction with a mostly unreadable “605.” Park here on Road 3050 or 605 and 

walk <0.1 mile up to DEMO sign and white Carsonite post. Flagged with 

orange/white striped flagging to grid corner post 3G9.

40%A (PH4) 

Be prepared to set trip meter to 0 at Paradise Creek Campground (just past milepost 20). 

Mileage Location

— From Wind River Experimental Forest, head north on Wind River Road 30 

about 12 miles to Paradise Creek Campground (right side of the road just past 

milepost 20). Set trip meter to 0.

0 Paradise Creek Campground.

5.2 Left onto first paved road past Old Man Pass (beyond Old Man Pass Snow 

Park); wide opening at the top of the hill. Stay to the left to exit paved road 

to another snow park; stay to the left on graveled road through U.S. Forest 

Service gate (should be locked but was not locked in 2015).

5.4 Cross Old Man Loop Trail.

8.1 Arrive at middle of lower edge of PH4 (slash at landing where logs were yarded 

out of the unit).

8.2 Park on the right where road curves to the left. Walk down the road a short 

distance to grid access trail (and plot 4H7). Trail is flagged with orange and 

white striped flagging (four flags at roadside). Old trail still present—flagged 

to patch edge (plot 4H7). Grid corner is 4H8.
111

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

15%D (PH5) 

Follow driving directions for PH1 (above) until 5.7 miles. Be prepared to set trip 

meter to 0 at Road 31. Unit is very dense with regeneration; navigating will require 

careful use of a compass. Many residual trees have fallen both in the unit and at its 

eastern edge (entry point) making it difficult to traverse.

Mileage Location

— From Wind River Experimental Forest, head north on Wind River Road 30. It is 

about 12 miles to Paradise Creek Campground (right side of the road just past 

milepost 20). From the campground it is 3.5 miles to Road 31 (left). 

0 Left onto Road 31: major intersection with a brown sign “Road closed to 

wheeled vehicles Dec 1–Apr 1.” Set trip meter to 0.

4.7 Pass intersection with Road 3103 on right (not signed)

5.7 Junction of 3105 and 3107; stay to the left on Road 3107. Red flagging says 

“DEMO 5 & 6.” In 2015, the gate was locked on the way in but open on the 

way out (should not be locked). 

6.6 Triangle intersection with sign to Paradise Hills trail. Turn right onto Road 115 

(brown Carsonite road sign is misnumbered).

7.6 Arrive in mature forest on east edge of PH5 (steep/brushy on the way down). 

Brown DEMO sign at edge of opening. Walk to large opening east of PH5; 

watch for red flagging on the right. To avoid major tree fall, follow flagging 

into mature forest. Trail trends to the northwest, then southwest, then into the 

unit plot 5E7.

15%A (PH6)

Follow driving directions for PH1 until 5.7 miles. Be prepared to set trip meter to 0 

at Road 31. Dense advanced regeneration in the harvest matrix. Northeast aggregate 

is falling apart: many down trees with tip-up mounds. 

Mileage Location

— From Wind River Experimental Forest, head north on Wind River Road 30. It is 

about 12 miles to Paradise Creek Campground (right side of the road just past 

milepost 20). From the campground, it is 3.5 miles to Road 31 (left).

0 Left onto Road 31: major intersection with a brown sign “Road closed to 

wheeled vehicles Dec 1–Apr 1.” Set trip meter to 0.

4.7 Pass intersection with Road 3103 on right (not signed).

5.7 Junction of 3105 and 3107; stay to the left on Road 3107: red flagging says 

“DEMO 5 & 6.” In 2015, the gate was locked on the way in but open on the 

way out (should not be locked).

6.6 Triangle intersection with sign to Paradise Hills trail. Stay on Road 3107 to left.

7.0 Reach a “Y”—stay to the right. Brushy in places after this point. Route is 

flagged in red at this point.

7.7 Arrive near access point and park along creekside on the right. Just down the 

road is a white Carsonite sign, “DEMO 6” with red flagging: this is the access 

point to the northeast aggregate and grid point 6G6 (flagged red). Access to 

the “9” grid line is easy along the forest edge to the north.
112

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
113

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
114

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
115

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
116

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
117

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
118

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Appendix 7: Locations and Navigational Aids to 

and Within Treatment Units at the Capitol Forest 

Experimental Block in Washington 

Orthophoto is from 2011. Unit labels are (1) 100% = unharvested control, (2) 75%A 

= 75% aggregated retention, (3) 40%D = 40% dispersed retention, (4) 40%A = 40% 

aggregated retention, (5) 15%D = 15% dispersed retention, and (6) 15%A = 15% 

aggregated retention. Grid points in each treatment unit are identified by 3-character codes indicating treatment number (1 through 6, as shown above), row (letter), 

and column (number); two corner grid points are labelled here. Orthophotos are followed by road maps and diagrams of the sampling grids, which include grid-point 

identifiers and the locations of aggregates (40%A, 15%A) or gaps (75%A).
119

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

0 0 0.25 .5 1

Kilometers

100%

75%A

40%D

40%A

15%D

15%A

Capitol Forest

1A1

1G9

5A1

5H8

2H8

2A1

4A1

4I7

6A1

6H8

3A1

3H8

D-8000 Road

E-7000 Road

Bordeaux

Entrance

E-Line Road

D-Line Road

D-4300 Road

D-4000 Road

Cedar Creek

Corrections

Center

D-8000 Road
120

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
121
122

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
123

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
124

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
125

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
126

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978
127

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study
128

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Appendix 8: Locations of the Four Corner Grid Points in Each DEMO 

Treatment Unit (Albers WA-OR NAD83)

Block/

treatment Grid point Northing Easting

Block/

treatment Grid point Northing Easting

- - - - - Meters - - - - - - - - - - Meters - - - - -

Watson Falls: Dog Prairie:

100% 1A1 1024227 417579 100% 1A1 1016986 412494

1A7 1024126 417798 1A7 1016872 412706

1I1 1023938 417444 1I1 1016705 412342

1I7 1023834 417663 1I7 1016592 412553

75%A 2A1 1023378 401956 75%A 2A1 1017075 412103

2A7 1023507 402159 2A7 1016978 412324

2I1 1023109 402130 2I1 1016781 411975

2I7 1023235 402330 2I7 1016685 412195

40%D 3A1 1030471 415708 40%D 3A1 1017759 410825

3A7 1030316 415891 3A7 1017768 411063

3I1 1030225 415501 3I1 1017439 410836

3I7 1030071 415686 3I7 1017449 411077

40%A 4A1 1024252 417941 40%A 4A1 1017163 411795

4A7 1024182 418171 4A7 1017070 412014

4I1 1023944 417849 4I1 1016874 411665

4I7 1023875 418079 4I7 1016777 411885

15%D 5A1 1022839 402559 15%D 5A1 1016835 412775

5A9 1023045 402805 5A7 1016721 412985

5G1 1022656 402713 5I1 1016556 412621

5G9 1022860 402959 5I7 1016439 412831

15%A 6A1 1023040 402171 15%A 6A1 1017593 410423

6A9 1023216 402438 6A9 1017607 410742

6G1 1022839 402303 6G1 1017353 410434

6G9 1023015 402570 6G9 1017367 410753
129

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Block/

treatment Grid point Northing Easting

Block/

treatment Grid point Northing Easting

- - - - - Meters - - - - - - - - - - Meters - - - - -

Butte: Little White Salmon:

100% 1A1 1368676 477542 100% 1A1 1311762 467887

1A7 1368849 477708 1A7 1311611 467700

1I1 1368457 477773 1I1 1312009 467685

1I7 1368628 477937 1I7 1311857 467499

75%A 2A1 1369302 478339 75%A 2A1 1311597 469423

2A7 1369476 478503 2A7 1311643 469191

2I1 1369086 478571 2I1 1311911 469484

2I7 1369254 478738 2 I7 1311956 469249

40%D 3A1 1370244 478642 40%D 3A1 1311533 467616

3A9 1370564 478634 3A8 1311339 467419

3G1 1370250 478883 3H1 1311735 467421

3G9 1370570 478873 3H8 1311536 467224

40%A 4A1 1369519 478607 40%A 4A1 1312039 468683

4A9 1369750 478827 4A7 1312210 468513

4G1 1369354 478780 4I1 1312269 468908

4G9 1369583 479002 4I7 1312437 468738

15%D 5A1 1368918 477775 15%D 5A1 1311966 468267

5A7 1369093 477940 5A9 1311786 468003

5I1 1368699 478007 5G1 1312164 468134

5I7 1368872 478171 5G9 1311986 467869

15%A 6A1 1367958 476630 15%A 6A1 1311547 470073

6A9 1368149 476885 6A9 1311592 469758

6G1 1367765 476772 6G1 1311785 470107

6G9 1367956 477029 6G9 1311832 469792

Appendix 8 (continued)
130

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Block/

treatment Grid point Northing Easting

Block/

treatment Grid point Northing Easting

- - - - - Meters - - - - - - - - - - Meters - - - - -

Paradise Hills: Capitol Forest:

100% 1A1 1328412 441811 100% 1A1 1429381 362511

1A8 1328593 441596 1A9 1429274 362210

1H1 1328624 441997 1G1 1429608 362430

1H8 1328809 441777 1G9 1429500 362129

75%A 2A1 1329305 444456 75%A 2A1 1431720 360832

2A9 1329303 444776 2A8 1431712 360552

2G1 1329063 444457 2H1 1432000 360824

2G9 1329065 444771 2H8 1431992 360544

40%D 3A1 1330931 450811 40%D 3A1 1428697 360246

3A9 1330789 450525 3A8 1428461 360397

3G1 1331145 450704 3H1 1428546 360011

3G9 1331001 450420 3H8 1428310 360162

40%A 4A1 1329139 449561 40%A 4A1 1431427 361209

4A8 1329415 449506 4A7 1431442 361448

4H1 1329193 449836 4I1 1431107 361230

4H8 1329469 449784 4I7 1431122 361469

15%D 5A1 1328145 444742 15%D 5A1 1429931 361607

5A7 1328186 444978 5A8 1430011 361875

5I1 1327830 444795 5H1 1429662 361687

5I7 1327873 445029 5H8 1429743 361955

15%A 6A1 1326916 445950 15%A 6A1 1431645 360472

6A9 1327229 445879 6A8 1431541 360212

6G1 1326973 446183 6H1 1431905 360369

6G9 1327284 446114 6H8 1431802 360109

Note: Locations of all grid points, including interpolated interior points, are available under the TP108 study code in the Oregon State University Forest 

Science Data Bank (http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=TP108).

Appendix 8 (continued)
131

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Appendix 9: Bearings (in Degrees) of Rows and Columns of the Systematic 

Grid in Each DEMO Treatment Unit

Treatment

100% 75%A 40%D 40%A 15%D 15%A

From grid point: 1A1 1A1 2A1 2A1 3A1 3A1 4A1 4A1 5A1 5A1 6A1 6A1

To grid point: 1A7 1G1 2A7 2G1 3A7 3G1 4A7 4G1 5A7 5G1 6A7 6G1

Watson Falls 113 203 56 146 128 218 105 195 49 139 56 146

Dog Prairie 120 210 115 205 90 180 115 205 120 210 90 180

Butte 45 135 45 135 0 90 45 135 45 135 55 145

Little White 

Salmon

231 321 280 10 226 316 316 46 236 326 279 9

Paradise Hills 310 40 90 180 245 335 349 79 82 172 348 78

Capitol Forest 250 340 268 358 147 237 86 176 73 163 248 338

Note: See appendixes 2 through 7 for grid maps showing the locations of aggregates, vegetation plots, and other features in each treatment unit.
132

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Appendix 10: Bearings (in Degrees) of Permanent Vegetation 

Transects in Each DEMO Treatment Unit 

Treatment

Block Transecta 100% 75%A 40%D 40%A 15%D 15%A

Watson Falls A 68.5 11.5 83.5 60.5 4.5 11.5

B 158.5 101.5 173.5 150.5 94.5 101.5

C 248.5 191.5 263.5 240.5 184.5 191.5

D 338.5 281.5 353.5 330.5 274.5 281.5

Dog Prairie A 75 70 45 70 75 45

B 165 160 135 160 165 135

C 255 250 225 250 255 225

D 345 340 315 340 345 315

Butte A 0 90 45 90 0 10

B 90 180 135 180 90 100

C 180 270 225 270 180 190

D 270 0 315 0 270 280

Little White Salmon A 6 55 1 1 6 54

B 96 145 91 91 96 144

C 186 235 181 181 186 234

D 276 325 271 271 276 324

Paradise Hills A 85 45 20 34 37 33

B 175 135 110 124 127 123

C 265 225 200 214 217 213

D 355 315 290 304 307 303

Capitol Forest A 25 43 12 41 28 23

B 115 133 102 131 118 113

C 205 223 192 221 208 203

D 295 313 282 311 298 293

a

 The four transects per plot (A through D, fig. 7) are offset 45 degrees from the grid system in each unit (see app. 9). 
133

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Appendix 11: Descriptions of Vegetation Databases Archived 

in the Oregon State University Forest Science Data Bank

Discipline Entity Description

Vegetation studies: Pretreatment (Study ID: TP104)

URL: http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=TP104 

1 Physical and site characteristics (U-A1)

2 Transect bearings and rebar placement (U-A2) (data are in TP108, entity 2)

3 Percent overstory canopy cover: moosehorn densiometer (U-A)

4 Herb layer cover and height, numbers of tree seedlings (U-B)

5 Ground surface conditions (U-C)

6 Tall shrub and understory tree layer: cover (U-D1)

7 Tall shrub and understory tree layer: height (U-D2)

8 Coarse woody debris (U-E)

9 Density of understory trees (U-F)

10 Preharvest tree diameters (O-A)

11 Snag measurements (O-B)

12 Tree heights (O-C)

13 DEMO grid point data

14 Percent overstory canopy cover: truck mirrors (U-H)

15 Preharvest disturbance: stumps and skid roads (U-I)

16 Preharvest disturbance: tree falls and tree breakage (U-J)

17 Epiphytic lichen biomass
134

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-978

Discipline Entity Description

Vegetation studies: Posttreatment (Study ID: TP108)

URL: http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=TP108 

1 General plot characteristics (U-A1)

2 Transect bearings, rebar distances, grid point conditions, and associated 

notes (U-A2)

3 Bryophyte and lichen species’ presence/absence and substrate 

associations in harvested and uncut plots (U-B1)

4 Bryophyte and lichen total cover in harvested and uncut plots (U-B1)

5 Herb layer in harvested plots: presence/absence, number of tree seedlings 

(U-B2)

6 Herb layer in harvested plots: cover, number of tree seedlings (U-B2)

7 Herb layer in uncut plots: cover, height, number of tree seedlings (U-B3)

8 Ground surface conditions (U-C)

9 Tall shrub and understory trees: cover (U-D1)

10 Tall shrub and understory trees: height (U-D2)

11 Coarse woody debris (U-E)

12 Natural regeneration (1998, 1999) (U-F)

13 Overstory trees (O-A, O-E, and O-G)

14 Snags (O-B, O-F, and O-F2)

15 Tree heights, post-harvest (O-C)

16 Percent overstory canopy cover: truck mirrors (U-H)

17 Disturbance assessment: cover (U-I1)

18 Disturbance assessment: slash depth (U-I2)

19 Planted trees (U-G, U-G2)

20 Plot photo commentsa

21 Tree mortality (O-D)

24 Natural regeneration (2003-2016) (U-F2)

25 Height and leader growth of tagged natural regeneration (U-F3) 

Note: Codes in parentheses refer to overstory (O-) and understory (U-) field forms.

a

 Image files are available on request from the Oregon State University Forest Science Data Bank

Appendix 11 (continued)
135

The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options (DEMO) Study

Appendix 12: Descriptions of Wildlife Databases 

Archived in the Oregon State University Forest Science 

Data Bank

Discipline Entity Description

Wildlife studies: Pre- and posttreatment (Study ID: WE015)

URL: http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=WE015 

1 Arboreal rodents

2 Arboreal rodent dissection data

3 Flying squirrel winter den sites in south-central Oregon 

Cascades: tree characteristics

4 Flying squirrel winter den sites in south-central Oregon 

Cascades: tracking observations

5 Flying squirrel winter den sites in south-central Oregon 

Cascades: tree density

6 Flying squirrel winter den sites in south-central Oregon 

Cascades: vertical canopy structure

7 Bat ultrasonic surveys 1994, 1995, 1996

8 Bat trapping data 1996

9 Echolocation bat data 1998, blocks 5,7,8 (post treatment)

10 Insectivore pitfall data

11 Small rodents pitfall data

12 Amphibian pitfall data

13 Bird surveys

14 Bird territorial mapping, pre- and post-treatment

Appendix 13: Descriptions of Arthropod Databases 

Archived in the Oregon State University Forest Science 

Data Bank

Discipline Entity Description

Arthropod studies: Pretreatment (Study ID: TS016)

URL: http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=TS016 

1 DEMO pre-harvest invertebrates (arthropods)a

2 Descriptions of species in TS01601

Arthropod studies: Posttreatment (Study ID: TS018)

URL: http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=TS018

1 Abundance of bark arthropods (non-arachnids)

2 Abundance of bark arthropods (arachnids)

3 Biomass of bark arthropods (non-arachnids)

4 Biomass of bark arthropods (arachnids)

5 Abundance of litter arthropods (carabids)

6 Abundance of litter arthropods (arachnids)

a

 Posttreatment data on foliage-dwelling arthropods are not archived in the Oregon State University Forest 

Science Data Bank.
136

Appendix 14: Descriptions of Ectomycorrhizal Fungi 

Databases Archived in the Oregon State University 

Forest Science Data Bank

Discipline Entity Description

Fungi studies: Pre- and posttreatment (Study ID: TP109)

URL: http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=TP109 

1 DEMO mushroom collectionsa

 

2 DEMO truffle collectionsa

 

a

 All pretreatment data are archived in the Oregon State University Data Bank, but only posttreatment data for 

1998 from the Butte experimental block are archived.

Appendix 15: Descriptions of Microclimate Databases 

Archived in the Oregon State University Forest Science 

Data Bank

Discipline Entity Description

Microclimatic studies: Posttreatment (Study ID: MS034)

URL: http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=MS034 

1 Site descriptions

2 Transmitted light and percent open sky estimated using the 

Gap Light Analyzer (GLA) and digital hemispherical photos

3 Volumetric soil moisture (%) measured using Time Domain 

Reflectometry (TDR)

4 Cover of plant growth forms, ground-surface conditions, and 

slash; slash depth

5 Air and soil temperature using iButton temperature data 

loggers


Pacific Northwest Research Station

Website https://www.fs.usda.gov/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808–2100

Publication requests (503) 808–2138

FAX (503) 808–2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

1220 SW 3rd Ave., Suite 1400

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300