U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5087

BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: 

Establishment Report and Study Plan 
Cover: Photo of Southern Torrent Salamander by William P. Leonard.
BLM Density Management and Riparian 

Buffer Study: Establishment Report and 

Study Plan

By John Cissel, Paul Anderson, Deanna Olson, Klaus Puettmann, 

Shanti Berryman, Samuel Chan, and Charley Thompson

In cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management, the Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Oregon State University, and the Cooperative Forest Ecosystem Research Program

Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5087

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

Dirk A. Kempthorne, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Cissel, J.H., Anderson, P.D., Olson, Deanna, Puettmann, Klaus, Berryman, Shanti, Chan, Samuel, and Thompson, 

Charley, 2006, BLM Density management and riparian buffer study: Establishment report and study plan: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5087, 144 p.
iii

Acknowledgments

Many individuals have contributed time, energy, and support to the Density Management and 

Riparian Buffer Study. We thank John Tappeiner for his scientific leadership and vision as the 

initiator of the study. Charley Thompson and Larry Larsen provided the leadership and support 

needed from the BLM to get the study implemented. A Core Team of BLM specialists gave 

freely of their time and ideas to help develop the early study plan. A site coordinator leads each 

site and relies on resource specialists, planners, operations specialists, and GIS specialists to 

make the study happen on the ground. Mark Koski has contributed many weeks of his time 

to coordinate development of GIS databases. Managers in the BLM have seen the study as a 

priority worth funding and supporting. We benefitted from our interactions with scientists who 

participated in collaborative studies and field tours. Field crews and research assistants spent 

countless hours climbing over steep slopes collecting data in weather both ideal and miserable. 

Still others have cleaned up the data and created large, complex databases. To each of these 

folks, and to all who have helped move the Density Management Study forward, we heartily 

thank you. Specific individuals that have contributed to the study include:

Collaborating scientists - Bruce McCune, Andy Moldenke, Pat Muir, Lorelei Norvell, and Rob 

Progar

Data management - Valerie Banner, Maureen Duane, Loretta Ellenburg, Melissa Hamar, Joe 

Hanus, Robin Hibbs, Dylan Keon, George Lienkaemper, Kathleen Maas-Hebner, Kevin Nelson, 

Kate Norman, Sherry Pittam, Cindy Rugger, Cheryll Solomon, and Rebecca Thompason 

Field crew leadership - Laurie Abernathy, Valerie Banner, Loretta Ellenburg, Ron Exeter, Bob 

Fahey, Jay Flora, Emmalie Goodwin, David Larson, Dan Mikowski, Estella Morgan, Stafford 

Owen, and Mark Yeiter.

Graphic support - Kelly Christiansen, Emily Goodwin, Kathryn Ronnenberg, and Kirsten 

Schumaker

Map development - Jeremy Hruska and Jeanne Keyes

Planning and implementation - David Harden, Alan James, Rick Kottke, Roger Monthey, Phil 

Redlinger, Rick Schultz, Steve Weber, and Steve Yates

Site coordinators - Floyd Freeman, Craig Kintop, Peter O’Toole, Sharmila Premdas, Frank 

Price, and Hugh Snook

Statistical analysis - Lisa Ganio, Manuela Huso, David Larson, Cindy Rugger, David Rundio, 

and George Weaver

Steering committee - Jamie Barbour, Julia Dougan, John Hayes, and Nancy Molina

Study plan development - John Applegarth, Pete Bisson, Bruce Bury, Linda Conley, Stan 

Gregory, Bruce Hansen, Dave Hohler, Larry Jones, Larry Larsen, Yuman Lee, Don Major, 

Brenda McComb, Peter O’Toole, Gordie Reeves, Jim Sedell, and Craig Snider

We also thank Steve Acker, John Bailey, Janet Erickson, and Rob Pabst for their helpful review 

comments, and John Ame and Angel Dawson for their editorial assistance.

Lastly, we want to thank all the people we forgot to mention above.
iv

This page is intentionally blank.
Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................... 1

Introduction................................................................................................ 2

History ................................................................................................ 2

Partnerships ....................................................................................... 4

Objectives ................................................................................................ 4

Science and Management ........................................................................ 4

Desired Future Stand Conditions.................................................................. 4

Study Design ............................................................................................. 4

Initial Thinning Study .............................................................................. 5

Phase One .................................................................................... 5

Phase Two .................................................................................... 5

High Density Treatment Prescription ................................................ 7

Moderate Density Treatment Prescription .......................................... 7

Variable Density Treatment Prescription............................................. 8

Provisions Common to All Treatments................................................ 8

Patch Cuts ........................................................................ 8

Leave Islands ..................................................................... 8

Understory Trees, Shrubs, and Herbs .......................................... 8

Riparian Buffer Study .............................................................................. 8

Rethinning Study .................................................................................... 11

Understory Trees, Shrubs, and Herbs ...................................................... 11

Provisions Common to All Studies ............................................................... 12

Snags .......................................................................................... 12

Downed Wood ................................................................................. 12

Species Choice .............................................................................. 13

Treatment Assignment.............................................................................. 13

Study Sites ................................................................................................ 13

Site Selection Process ........................................................................... 13

Study Locations .................................................................................... 15

Component Studies ....................................................................................... 15

Vegetation Response - Klaus Puettmann and Shanti Berryman .............................. 15

Introduction .................................................................................... 15

Objectives .................................................................................... 16

Methods ....................................................................................... 16

Study Sites .............................................................................. 16

Sampling Design ........................................................................ 16

Treatment Plots .................................................................. 17

Thinning Plots ..................................................................... 17

Response Variables and Measurements............................................. 18

Treatment Plots .................................................................. 18

Thinning Plots ..................................................................... 20

Measurement Schedule ............................................................... 21
vi

Contents—Continued

Component Studies—Continued

Vegetation Response - Klaus Puettmann and Shanti Berryman—Continued

Methods—Continued

Data Management ..................................................................... 21

Analysis ................................................................................. 21

Overstory................................................................................. 22

Understory ........................................................................ 22

Application of Results .................................................................. 22

Scope of Inference ............................................................... 22

Expected Outcomes............................................................... 23

Aquatic Habitats and Vertebrate Diversity - Deanna H. Olson .............................. 23

Introduction .................................................................................... 23

Objectives .................................................................................... 24

Methods ....................................................................................... 24

Study Sites .............................................................................. 24

Sampling Design ........................................................................ 25

Response Variables and Measurements............................................. 25

In-Channel Vertebrate Sampling ...................................................... 26

Streambank Time-Constrained Searches .......................................... 27

Upslope Time-Constrained Searches ................................................ 27

Handling of Animals..................................................................... 27

Sampling Schedule ..................................................................... 27

Data Management ..................................................................... 27

Analytical Approach .................................................................. 28

Application of Results ........................................................................ 29

Scope of Inference ..................................................................... 29

Expected Outcomes..................................................................... 30

Related Studies .............................................................................. 30

Microclimates and Microhabitats of Riparian and Adjacent Upland Areas - 

Samuel Chan and Paul Anderson ............................................................ 31

Introduction .................................................................................... 31

Objectives .................................................................................... 32

Methods ....................................................................................... 32

Study Sites .............................................................................. 32

Sampling Design ........................................................................ 32

Riparian-Upland Transects ...................................................... 33

Streamside Transects ............................................................ 33

Nested Sample Plots ............................................................ 33
vii

Contents—Continued

Component Studies—Continued

Microclimates and Microhabitats of Riparian and Adjacent Upland Areas - 

Samuel Chan and Paul Anderson—Continued

Methods—Continued

Response Variables and Measurements............................................. 33

Overstory Stand Structure ...................................................... 36

Canopy Cover and Light Conditions............................................. 36

Microclimate ..................................................................... 37

Microsite ........................................................................... 37

Understory Vegetation............................................................ 37

Forest Floor ........................................................................ 38

Sampling Schedule ..................................................................... 38

Periodicity ........................................................................ 38

Seasonality ........................................................................ 38

Data Management ..................................................................... 39

Analytical Approach .................................................................. 39

Application of Results ........................................................................ 40

Scope of Inference ..................................................................... 40

Expected Outcomes..................................................................... 41

Collaborative Studies .................................................................................... 41

Lichens - Peter Neitlich, Bruce McCune......................................................... 41

Leave Islands - Stephanie Wessell, Deanna Olson, and Richard Schmitz .................. 42

Fungi - Lorelei Norvell, Ron Exeter ............................................................... 42

Bryophytes - Pat Muir, Tom Rambo ............................................................... 43

Songbirds - Jennifer Weikel, Dan Edge ......................................................... 43

Understory Vegetation Patterns Across Canopy Gaps - Robert Fahey, Klaus Puettmann 43

Understory Shrubs and Trees - John Tappeiner ................................................ 43

Aquatic and Riparian Functions - Samuel Chan, Robert Danehy, Maryanne Reiter ...... 44

Arthropods - Andrew Moldenke .................................................................. 44

Treatment and Measurement Schedule ............................................................... 45

Study Administration .................................................................................... 46

Funding ............................................................................................. 48

Outreach ............................................................................................. 48

Opportunities and Needs................................................................................. 50

Stand and Habitat Development .................................................................. 50

Effects of Young Stand Management ............................................................ 50

Landscapes .......................................................................................... 50

Integration .......................................................................................... 51

Literature Cited .......................................................................................... 51
viii

Contents—Continued

Appendixes ................................................................................................ 57

Appendix A. BLM Oregon State Office Directive IM OR-93-145 ........................... 57

Appendix B. BLM Oregon State Office Directive IB OR-94-317 ........................... 59

Appendix C. BLM Oregon State Office Directive IM OR-05-083 ........................... 61

Appendix D. Final Initial Study Plan ............................................................ 64

Appendix E. Site Histories and Maps ......................................................... 75

Initial Thinning Sites........................................................................... 75

Bottomline .............................................................................. 75

Callahan Creek ........................................................................ 81

Delph Creek.............................................................................. 87

Green Peak .............................................................................. 93

Keel Mountain ........................................................................... 99

North Soup ..............................................................................105

OM Hubbard ...........................................................................111

Ten High .................................................................................117

Rethinning Sites ..............................................................................123

Blue Retro ..............................................................................123

Little Wolf ..............................................................................129

Perkins Creek ...........................................................................133

Sand Creek ..............................................................................137

Appendix F. Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study Publications ...............140

Brochures ....................................................................................140

Journal Articles and Book Chapters ......................................................140

Submitted or In Prep Papers ...............................................................141

Abstracts .......................................................................................141

Posters..........................................................................................143

Unpublished Reports ........................................................................143
ix

Figures

Figure 1. Graph showing western Oregon BLM forest age distribution ........................ 2

Figure 2. Map showing layout of treatments in the Green Peak study site in the

Oregon Coast Range ........................................................................ 6

Figure 3. Diagram showing conceptual representation of riparian buffer treatments

being evaluated.............................................................................. 9

Figure 4. Map showing study sites .................................................................. 14

Figure 5. Sampling schematic for the treatment plot vegetation survey showing the

0.25-acre plot and the 0.005-acre nested subplots .................................... 17

Figure 6. Graph showing cumulative effectiveness of an old-growth stand in

mitigating microclimatic changes associated with clearcutting ..................... 32

Figure 7. Diagram showing transect and sample-plot layout for microclimate and

microsite sampling ........................................................................ 36

Figure 8. Diagram showing principal lines of communication .................................... 46

Tables

Table 1. Residual live tree target densities for the Initial Thinning Study treatments ......... 6

Table 2. Study sites.................................................................................... 13

Table 3. Number of thinning plots at each site for the initial thinning and rethinning 

studies, separated by uplands and Riparian Reserves ................................. 18

Table 4. Response variables and descriptions for the vegetation monitoring plots ......... 19

Table 5. Stream reaches per riparian buffer treatment type .................................... 25

Table 6. Habitat variables collected along streams ............................................. 26

Table 7a. Pre-treatment implementation schedule for the aquatic habitat and 

vertebrate component of the Riparian Buffer Study .................................... 28

Table 7b. Post-treatment implementation schedule for the aquatic habitat and

vertebrate component of the Riparian Buffer Study .................................... 28

Table 8. Geographic locations and BLM administrative jurisdictions for sites in the

Riparian Microclimate and Microsite Component....................................... 32

Table 9. Riparian buffer and density management treatments by site ........................ 34

Table 10. Descriptive and response variables measured or monitored as part of the

Microclimate and Microsite Component ................................................ 35

Table 11. Schedule of major harvest and measurement events by site for the 

Riparian Microclimate and Microsite Component....................................... 38

Table 12. Single-degree-of-freedom contrasts to evaluate differences among riparian

buffer/density management treatments ................................................ 40

Table 13. Initial thinning sites ........................................................................ 45

Table 14. Rethinning sites.............................................................................. 45

Table 15. Roles .......................................................................................... 47

Table 16. DMS funding sources ..................................................................... 49

Table 17. Direct funding contributions by organization............................................. 50
Conversion Factors

English to Metric

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

mile, nautical (nmi) 1.852 kilometer (km)

yard (yd) 0.9144 meter (m)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

acre 0.4047 square hectometer (hm2) 

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2)

square foot (ft2) 929.0 square centimeter (cm2)

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

square inch (in2) 6.452 square centimeter (cm2)

section (640 acres or 1 square mile) 259.0 square hectometer (hm2) 

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Metric to English

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

kilometer (km) 0.5400 mile, nautical (nmi) 

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

Area

square meter (m2) 0.0002471 acre 

hectare (ha) 2.471 acre

square hectometer (hm2) 2.471 acre

square kilometer (km2) 247.1 acre

square centimeter (cm2) 0.001076 square foot (ft2)

square meter (m2) 10.76 square foot (ft2) 

square centimeter (cm2) 0.1550 square inch (ft2)

square hectometer (hm2) 0.003861 section (640 acres or 1 square mile)

hectare (ha) 0.003861 square mile (mi2) 

square kilometer (km2) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

 °F=(1.8×°C)+32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

 °C=(°F-32)/1.8
BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study:

Establishment Report and Study Plan 

By John Cissel, Paul Anderson, Deanna Olson, Klaus Puettmann, Shanti Berryman, Samuel Chan, and 

Charley Thompson

Abstract

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Pacific 

Northwest Research Station (PNW), U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), and Oregon State University (OSU) established 

the BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study 

(DMS) in 1994 to demonstrate and test options for young 

stand management to meet Northwest Forest Plan objectives 

in western Oregon. The primary objectives of the DMS are to 

evaluate the effects of alternative forest density management 

treatments in young stands on the development of important 

late-successional forest habitat attributes and to assess the 

combined effects of density management and alternative 

riparian buffer widths on aquatic and riparian ecosystems.

The DMS consists of three integrated studies: initial 

thinning, rethinning, and riparian buffer widths. The initial 

thinning study was installed in 50- to 80-year-old stands that 

had never been commercially thinned. Four stand treatments 

of 30–60 acres each were established at each of seven study 

sites: (1) unthinned control, (2) high density retention [120 

trees per acre (TPA)], (3) moderate density retention (80 TPA), 

and (4) variable density retention (40–120 TPA). Small (1/4 

to 1 acre in size) leave islands were included in all treatments 

except the control, and small patch cuts (1/4 to 1 acre in 

size) were included in the moderate and variable density 

treatments. An eighth site, Callahan Creek, contains a partial 

implementation of the study design.

The rethinning study was installed in four 70- to 90-

year-old stands that previously had been commercially 

thinned. Each study stand was split into two parts: one part 

as an untreated control and the other part as a rethinning 

(30–60 TPA).

The riparian buffer study was nested within the moderate 

density retention treatment at each of the eight initial thinning 

study sites and two rethinning sites. Alternative riparian buffer 

widths included: (1) streamside retention (one tree canopy 

width, or 20–25 feet), (2) variable width (follows topographic 

and vegetative breaks, 50 feet slope distance minimum), 

(3) one full site-potential tree height (approximately 220 feet), 

and (4) two full tree heights (approximately 440 feet).

A second round of density management manipulations 

are now being planned for implementation beginning in 2009. 

Stem density will be reduced in the high, moderate, and 

variable density treatments and most existing riparian buffers, 

leave islands, and patch cuts will remain in place.

Remeasurement, data management, and analysis are 

ongoing for three long-term, core components of the DMS: 

vegetation, microclimate, and aquatic vertebrates. In addition, 

several short-term collaborative studies have been completed 

on these sites, including leave island effectiveness as refugia, 

treatment response of terrestrial and aquatic arthropods, 

and smaller-scale studies of fungal, lichen, and bryophyte 

community response. Additional collaborative studies are 

encouraged on DMS sites.
Introduction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 

a significant amount of forested land in western Oregon 

(approximately 2,200,000 acres), much of which occurs on 

productive, low-elevation sites. Historically, most of these 

lands have been managed primarily for sustained timber 

production to meet the objectives of the Oregon and California 

(O&C) Railroad Act of 1937, the primary legislation 

authorizing management of O&C lands. Until about 1950, 

seed tree harvest with natural regeneration was the primary 

silvicultural practice. Seed trees were usually removed once 

regeneration was established. Since then, spatially dispersed 

clearcut harvests with subsequent artificial regeneration and 

intensive stand management have been the dominant forms of 

silviculture practiced on these lands. Regeneration harvests, 

wildfire, and blowdown events have resulted in young forests 

on approximately one-half of the BLM-managed lands 

[1,139,000 acres (52 percent) are less than 80 years of age, 

fig. 1]. Douglas-fir is the dominant tree species on most sites, 

both because of its competitive ability in early-successional 

environments and because management has favored Douglas-fir 

through reforestation and thinning operations.

Forest management on Federal lands in western Oregon 

and Washington changed dramatically with the listing of 

the northern spotted owl as a threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act in 1990 and with the development of 

an owl recovery plan in 1992. The BLM responded in 1991 

by initiating a process to revise the Resource Management 

Plans (RMPs) for management districts within the range of 

the owl. Draft plans were issued that included a variety of 

new and untested silvicultural approaches intended to foster 

development of structurally complex late-successional habitat. 

In 1993, prior to issuance of final RMPs for these districts, 

Federal scientists were directed by President Clinton to 

produce a regional plan to protect and restore late-successional 

forest habitat and species, while simultaneously providing 

for a sustainable level of timber production (FEMAT, 1993). 

The results were incorporated into the Northwest Forest Plan 

[(NFP); USDA and USDI, 1994], which formally modified 

existing BLM RMPs and national forest plans. Subsequently, 

the BLM issued revised RMPs for the districts within the 

range of the owl in 1994 and 1995 that fully incorporated 

the NFP. These plans rely heavily on the application of 

new silvicultural systems to hasten development of latesuccessional habitat from existing young, structurally simple 

forests.

In response to these developments, BLM foresters, 

biologists, and botanists worked with Dr. John Tappeiner 

(former research scientist for the USGS and professor at the 

College of Forestry, Oregon State University; now retired) 

to create the BLM Density Management and Riparian 

Buffer Study (DMS). The broad goal of the DMS is to test 

silvicultural options intended to develop complex latesuccessional habitat from even-aged young forests (less than 

80 years of age). The purpose of this report is to describe the 

design and plan for conduct and maintenance of the study, and 

document the establishment of treatments across study sites.

History

In the late 1980s, Dr. John Tappeiner recognized that 

forest stand management on Federal lands in western Oregon 

needed to change in response to new knowledge regarding 

ecosystem structure and function and a shift in Federal 

land management priorities (personal communication). His 

experience leading other silvicultural studies in western 

Oregon and as lead author of the silviculture chapter in the 

Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USDI, Tappeiner et al., 

1992) helped clarify key questions needed for successful forest 

stand management to meet these challenges.

In consultation with BLM foresters, Dr. Tappeiner 

drafted a study plan (February 1, 1993; on file at the BLM 

Oregon State Office, final version contained in appendix D) 

intended to help the BLM manage for new objectives. This 

draft contained the first outline of the DMS. The draft plan 

also identified existing studies and sources of information that 

could be used to help test new prescriptions for BLM lands 

and listed reasons why these studies were insufficient (for 

example, sites were not adequately representative of BLMmanaged lands, studies did not test prescriptions anticipated 

in BLM RMPs, plot or stand size was insufficient to sample 

wildlife populations, and ongoing studies did not represent the 

planning and implementation skills of BLM personnel.)

Concurrently, a retrospective study was initiated by Dr. 

Tappeiner and a graduate student (John Bailey) that examined 

older commercially thinned sites on BLM-managed lands and 

compared them with nearby unthinned stands that shared a 

common history, and with nearby older forests located on sites 

with similar characteristics. The goal of these studies was to Figure 1. Western Oregon BLM forest age distribution.

 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
get an early look at the response of overstory and understory 

vegetation to thinning, recognizing it would take considerable 

time for experimental treatments to be implemented and for 

responses to become evident. Results from these studies were 

published (Bailey, 1996; Bailey and Tappeiner, 1998; and 

Bailey et al., 1998) and helped shape the concepts underlying 

the DMS study plan and site selection.

Formal direction to undertake the new study from the 

BLM Oregon State Office was issued to the BLM westside and Lakeview districts on June 25, 1993 (OR-93-145; 

appendix A). The memo announced the intention of the 

BLM to establish a group of active, recognized study sites on 

BLM-administered lands where complementary research and 

monitoring activities could be conducted. It also scheduled 

a meeting of district silviculturists and wildlife biologists to 

help shape the study. Shortly thereafter, Charley Thompson 

(forester, BLM Salem District) was designated as the BLM 

Project Coordinator and site selection criteria were developed. 

Later in 1993 the study was renamed the Density Management 

Study, an interdisciplinary study team was formed, and the 

first two sites for implementation were picked, one in the 

Cascade Range (Keel Mountain, Salem District) and one in the 

Coast Range (Bottomline, Eugene District).

The BLM Oregon State Office issued further guidance 

to the BLM west-side and Lakeview districts on March 29, 

1994 (OR-94-317; appendix B). The memo clarified that 

the study would proceed despite the reorganization of the 

BLM Cooperative Research Unit into the National Biological 

Survey [eventually to become part of the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS)]. The memo stated that study implementation 

would initially focus on the Cascade and Coast Ranges, 

that implementation would be delayed on the Medford and 

Lakeview districts, and that each affected district and resource 

area should expect a significant commitment of time to plan, 

implement, and monitor study sites. The interdisciplinary 

team also reviewed revised study plans in 1994 and suggested 

ways to integrate concerns and opportunities regarding plants, 

wildlife, and prescribed fire into the study plan as funds 

allowed.

A major event in the history of DMS occurred later 

in 1994 when Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW) 

scientists began discussions with Dr. Tappeiner and Charley 

Thompson about integrating a riparian buffer study into the 

DMS. Subsequently, study plans were written by Dr. Deanna 

Olson (aquatic vertebrates) and Samuel Chan (microclimatic 

gradients) that included an alternative riparian buffer design to 

be nested within one of the DMS treatments. These plans were 

refined and accepted as the Riparian Buffer Study.

Additional collaborative studies were added to the 

DMS in 1994, including a planting study developed by Dr. 

Peyton Owston (PNW). Epiphytic lichen [Dr. Bruce McCune, 

Oregon State University (OSU)] and forest floor bryophyte 

(Dr. Patricia Muir, OSU) studies designed to characterize 

pre-treatment conditions of these taxa also were initiated in 

1994. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Andrew Moldenke (OSU) and 

Dr. Robert Progar (PNW) initiated aquatic and terrestrial 

arthropod studies. Beginning on page 41 of this report, DMS 

collaborative studies are summarized with lists of publications 

resulting from this work.

The BLM submitted a request to the Regional Ecosystem 

Office (REO), an interagency body created by the Northwest 

Forest Plan, for review and concurrence of five DMS sites in 

early 1995. Concurrence by the REO was deemed necessary 

under the Northwest Forest Plan because timber harvest 

activities were planned within riparian reserves and latesuccessional reserves, even though the harvests were thinnings 

planned in young stands. The process involved discussions and 

deliberations over an 18-month period involving the Research 

and Monitoring Committee and the Late-Successional 

Reserve Committee of the REO. Study site selection was an 

ongoing process throughout this time period (see Study Sites, 

page 13) and sites were proposed to the REO in three groups. 

Ultimately, concurrence with findings of consistency with the 

Northwest Forest Plan were issued for all proposed DMS sites 

in the form of three memoranda from the REO to the BLM 

(June 21, 1995; May 24, 1996; and August 12, 1996; on file at 

the BLM Oregon State Office).

Timber sale planning to implement study treatments 

began in earnest once REO approval was granted. Timber 

harvests were phased in over a 5-year period (1996-2000) 

across 12 sites. Measurement plots and transects were 

established on all sites as documented in the study plan 

(see Component Studies, page 15 and Treatment and 

Measurement Schedule, page 45). Planning is now underway 

for a second round of manipulations, as described in this 

report and directed by the BLM State Office (IM OR-05-083, 

appendix C). Detailed information describing each site and its 

management history was prepared by the site coordinators and 

is included as appendix E.

Additional collaborative studies were established on 

some sites including a leave island study [Stephanie Wessell 

(OSU), Dr. Deanna Olson (PNW), and Dr. Richard Schmitz 

(OSU)]; a fungi biodiversity and community study [Dr. Lorelei 

Norvell (Pacific Northwest Mycology Service) and Ron 

Exeter (Salem BLM)]; a bryophyte study [Hugh Snook (Salem 

BLM)]; a songbird study [Jennifer Weikel (OSU) and Dr. Dan 

Edge (OSU)]; an understory shrub study [Dr. John Tappeiner 

(OSU)], and additional bryophyte studies by Dr. Patricia Muir 

(OSU) and Tom Rambo (OSU). 

Changes have occurred in science leadership over time as 

scientists have retired or moved into new positions. Dr. John 

Tappeiner retired in 2002 as the silviculture and vegetation 

principal investigator (PI) and was succeeded by Dr. Klaus 

Puettmann. In 2002, John Cissel (Oregon State Office, BLM) 

succeeded Charley Thompson as Study Coordinator, and 

Site Coordinators were established for all study sites. Dr. 

Paul Anderson assumed leadership of the Microclimate and 

Microsite Component when Samuel Chan moved into a new 

position in 2004. 

Introduction 
Partnerships

From its inception, the DMS has been perceived and 

operated as a broad partnership. The study was initiated as 

a collaboration between the USGS Forest and Rangeland 

Ecosystem Science Center and the BLM, and quickly 

expanded to include the PNW and OSU. The BLM has 

planned and implemented the treatments, administered site 

use and management, provided overall study coordination, 

organized outreach activities, and installed vegetation 

monitoring plots. The USGS provided the initial science 

leadership and study plan and supports website development 

and data delivery. PNW and OSU provide science leadership, 

collect and manage data, conduct analyses, report results, 

participate in outreach activities, and provide administrative 

support. The Cooperative Forest Ecosystem Research (CFER) 

program, a collaboration among USGS, OSU, BLM, and 

the Oregon Department of Forestry, supports DMS outreach 

activities and products. The Pacific Northwest Mycology 

Service, a private consulting firm, supports research on fungal 

response to DMS treatments. Each of these partners has 

provided substantial financial support, skills, and personnel to 

support the DMS.

Objectives

Science and Management 

–	Evaluate effects of alternative forest density 

management treatments on important stand and 

habitat attributes (large trees; standing and down dead 

wood; understory trees, shrubs, and herbs; vertical 

distribution of tree canopy; and spatial distribution of 

trees, shrubs, herbs, and dead wood).

–	Determine treatment effects on selected plant and 

animal taxa (amphibians, arthropods, mollusks, 

nonvascular plants, and fungi).

–	Assess the combined effects of density management 

and alternative riparian buffer widths on aquatic and 

riparian ecosystems.

–	Use DMS sites to develop operational approaches to 

implement new prescriptions and improve methods for 

effectiveness monitoring of plant and animal taxa.

–	Use DMS sites to share results of on-the-ground 

practices and findings with land managers, regulatory 

agencies, policy-makers, and the public.

–	Use results from DMS to conduct a long-term adaptive 

management process where management implications 

and policy changes are regularly evaluated and 

changed as needed.

Desired Future Stand Conditions

The essential long-term goal of the DMS is to accelerate 

development of late-successional characteristics in these 

younger forests. To a significant extent, habitat requirements 

of the northern spotted owl underlie this goal. Stands with latesuccessional characteristics provide better habitat for spotted 

owls as they appear to prefer stands with large diameter trees 

for nesting (Perkins, 2000; Courtney et al., 2004). Preferred 

habitat attributes include vertical canopy layering, tree height 

or diameter diversity, high canopy closure and volume, 

large trees, and large snags. All these variables showed a 

positive relationship with owl habitat (Courtney et al., 2004). 

Accelerating development of habitat characteristics may be 

crucial in maintaining viable owl populations, especially in 

regions dominated by young, even-aged stands. 

When treated stands reach 120–150 years of age, the 

desired stand conditions are as follows: 

Large green conifer trees 

>8 Douglas-fir per acre >30 in. 

2-6 trees per acre (TPA), diameter >50 in.

1 TPA, diameter >50 in. with a broken top 

Enhanced species and structural diversity 

25-35 TPA, diameter 15–30 in., hardwoods and 

conifers 

100-200 TPA, diameter <15 in., hardwoods and 

conifers 

Two or more species to include at least one shade 

tolerant species, and two or more age cohorts

Snags 

8-12 snags/acre, 50 percent diameter 10–25 in., 

50 percent diameter >25 in.

All decay classes present 

Downed logs 

900 linear ft/acre of well-dispersed logs 

1/3 of logs >24 in. diameter 

2/3 of logs 10–24 in. diameter 

All decay classes present

Study Design

Design of the DMS occurred in two distinct phases. 

The initial study design was developed in 1993–95 and 

documented in 2001 (appendix D). This design was used 

to install the first phase of the treatments in 1996–2000. 

Post-treatment measurements and observations led to new 

questions regarding the long-term trajectory of study stands 

and potential future treatments. The study plan was revised in 

2004 in response to these questions and documented herein. 

Similar to the initial study plan, the revision was developed by 

the principal investigators with iterative input by BLM field 

staff and others through field tours, document reviews, and 

meetings.

 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
The DMS consists of three related studies. The primary 

design was intended for 50- to 80-year-old forests that had not 

been previously thinned and was termed the “Initial Thinning” 

Study. Four distinct treatments (High Density, Moderate 

Density, Variable Density, and Control) were applied to seven 

sites in the Initial Thinning Study. An eighth initial thinning 

site, Callahan Creek, contains a partial implementation of the 

study design. A second study, the “Riparian Buffer” Study, 

was nested within the Moderate Density treatment at these 

sites. Two to four alternative riparian buffer widths were 

applied at each site depending on the types and positions 

of streams within the study units. The third study is the 

“Rethinning” Study. This design was intended for 70- to 

100-year-old forests that had been previously thinned. Two 

treatments (Rethin and Control) were applied to four sites in 

the Rethinning Study.

Initial Thinning Study

The Initial Thinning Study was designed to obtain 

information relevant to developing late-successional habitat 

that was not available from previous studies of even-aged, 

Douglas-fir silviculture (see appendix D; and USDI, Tappeiner 

et al., 1992). Unique characteristics of late-successional 

habitat include development of understory and midstory 

canopies, high spatial heterogeneity of trees and understory 

vegetation, and provision of large dead wood, both standing 

and down. Exploration of approaches to rapidly create high 

spatial heterogeneity and support development of understory 

and midstory vegetation drove the design of treatments. Dead 

wood management is only addressed indirectly in this study 

because approaches to managing for large dead wood depend 

on developing and sustaining sources of large live trees, a 

primary desired future stand condition.

Phase One

The initial thinning study was installed in 50- to 80-yearold stands that had never been commercially thinned. Four 

treatments of 30–60 acres each were established within each 

of seven study sites: 

1. Unthinned control. 200–350 TPA. 

2. High density (HD) retention. 70–75 percent of 

the stand thinned to 120 TPA, 20–30 percent left 

unthinned in riparian buffers or leave islands of three 

sizes (0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 acres). 

3. Moderate density (MD) retention. 60–65 percent of 

the stand thinned to 80 TPA, 10 percent of the stand 

cut in circular patch openings (0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 

acres), 10 percent left in circular leave islands (0.25, 

0.5, and 1.0 acres), and 15–20 percent left unthinned 

in riparian buffers. 

4. Variable density (VD) retention. 10 percent thinned 

to 40 TPA, 25–30 percent thinned to 80 TPA, 25–30 

percent thinned to 120 TPA, 10 percent left in leave 

islands (0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 acres), 10 percent cut in 

circular patch openings (0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 acres), and 

15–20 percent left unthinned in riparian buffers. 

Within the control, high density, and moderate density 

treatments, nine 1-acre areas were underplanted with western 

hemlock and western redcedar. Western hemlock, Douglasfir, western redcedar, and grand fir were planted in all patch 

openings and in the 40 TPA areas of the variable density 

retention treatment.

At Callahan Creek, the control and moderate density 

treatments were installed, primarily to facilitate the riparian 

buffer study.

Figure 2 depicts a representative layout of an initial 

thinning study site with the four subtreatments (control, HD, 

MD, and VD).

The HD retention treatment most closely resembles a 

traditional commercial thinning for timber production. While 

effects of accelerating the development of forest structure may 

be short-lived, this treatment retains options for later stand 

entries. The MD retention treatment allows more growing 

space for understory trees, shrubs, and herbs, and reduces 

competition among overstory trees for a longer period of time. 

Openings and islands create complexity within the stand. 

The VD retention treatment results in a highly diverse mix 

of conditions over a small spatial scale, providing the highest 

level of spatial heterogeneity among the treatments.

Phase Two

A second round of thinnings is being planned for 

implementation in 2009-2011. With this second round of 

thinnings, study treatments are now viewed as silvicultural 

systems involving multiple stand treatments over time as 

described below.

1. Unthinned control will provide data on development 

of unmanaged forests and will provide information 

about the benefits and costs of treatments. Controls 

provide baseline information crucial for comparison 

of the treatments on the different study sites, 

especially because only one replication of each 

treatment is present on a site. Controls will remain 

intact for the duration of the study.

2. High density (HD) retention, or three-step 

conversion, includes multiple thinnings aimed at 

opening the overstory canopy gradually. The first 

entry opened the canopy to 120 TPA; the second is 

proposed to occur 12 years later to 60 TPA, and the 

third, at a time to be determined, to 30 TPA.

Study Design 
3. Moderate density (MD) retention, or two-step 

conversion, includes two intensive thinnings. The 

overstory will be thinned in two steps with the first 

entry to 80 TPA and the second to 30 TPA proposed 

to occur 12 years later. No further entries are planned 

with one exception described in the riparian buffer 

section.

4. Variable density (VD) retention provides the 

highest heterogeneity within a stand. It provides a 

cornerstone of what can be achieved with intensive 

forest management. The next rethinnings for the 

120 TPA and 80 TPA treatment components mimic 

the thinnings described above in the HD and MD 

treatments. We propose to thin the 40 TPA areas to 

20 TPA at the next entry (12 years after the initial 

thinning). Areas currently thinned to 120 TPA will be 

rethinned again to 30 TPA at a time to be determined.

Residual density targets given above are for live trees 

(table 1); five additional trees per acre will be left for future 

snag recruitment. Thus, for marking purposes, the residual 

density after thinning will be higher – 65 TPA, 35 TPA, and 

25 TPA. (See “Snags” on page 12.)

The Riparian Buffer Study nested within the MD 

treatment will be retained and expanded. Existing buffers will 

remain with the exceptions described below (See “Riparian 

Buffer Study” on page 8).

The HD, MD, and VD treatments also provide a 

continuing opportunity to evaluate the effects of leave islands 

and patch cuts in the context of a managed stand. Existing 

leave islands and patch cuts will remain through the second 

round of treatments.

Other management considerations, such as downed wood 

and treatment of understory vegetation and regeneration, are 

applied consistently across all treatments and described below.

Figure 2. Layout of treatments in the Green Peak study site in the Oregon Coast Range.

Green Peak Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study Area

0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

Feet

T. 14 S., R. 6 W., Section 7

W.M. Oregon, USA

Treatment Types

Control

High

Moderate

Variable

Control

Unthinned

High Density

120 TPA

Leave Island

Riparian Buffer

Moderate Density

Patch Opening

80 TPA

Leave Island

Riparian Buffer

Variable Density

Patch Opening

40 TPA

80 TPA

120 TPA

Leave Island

Riparian Buffer

Aquatic Vertebrate Transect

Microclimate Transects

Underplantings

Treatment Plots

Thinning Plots

Roads

Streams

Land Ownership

BLM O&C Land

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,

reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate use

with other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. This

information may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product

was developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Oregon State Office

Green Peak

 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

Table 1. Residual live tree target densities for the Initial Thinning 

Study treatments. 

[Second and third entries will be implemented 12 and 24 years after the first 

entry, respectively]

Treatment First entry Second entry Third entry

Unthinned control No treatment No treatment No treatment

High density 120 TPA 60 TPA 30 TPA

Moderate density 80 TPA 30 TPA No treatment

Variable density 120/80/40 TPA 60/30/20 TPA Evaluate 

following 

second 

entry
High Density Treatment Prescription

This prescription will reduce tree density in areas initially 

thinned to 120 TPA down to 60 TPA (65 TPA with snag 

allowance) 12 years after the initial thinning (see table 11 on 

page 38 for the thinning schedule). Future plans include a third 

thinning lowering the density to 30 TPA (35 TPA with snag 

allowance).

The HD treatment is aimed at converting an evenaged, single-story stand structure to a more complex latesuccessional habitat by employing multiple, low-intensity 

thinnings. Our preliminary assessments indicate that the 

overstory and understory development resulting from the 

initial HD thinning are not very different from control stands. 

Consequently, we view the initial thinning as conservative, and 

view repeated thinnings as necessary to ensure stands develop 

towards a diverse structure characteristic of late-successional 

forests. However, this treatment provides a high amount of 

protection for plants and animals that require overstory cover.

The initial HD treatment was originally designed to 

reflect “conventional” management strategies. Current 

practices on Federal lands include thinning to densities lower 

than the 120 TPA initially left, even in stands managed for 

timber production. However, a slow, three-step treatment 

provides information for strategies where protection of interior 

stand conditions is important during the conversion of evenaged stands into late-successional habitat, such as in areas with 

wildlife sensitive to open conditions. 

We plan to thin to 60 TPA (65 TPA with snag allowance) 

with the second thinning. This entry will allow crown and 

stem form (taper) condition to adjust to more open canopy 

conditions and improve tree stability for the third thinning, 

which will open the stand to 30 TPA (35 TPA with snag 

allowance) and provide “open” growing conditions for the 

residual trees.

In summary, this treatment will provide information 

about a conservative management approach aimed at 

converting homogeneous stands to diverse stand structure. 

The information will apply to stands that have been thinned 

conservatively in the past. The low-intensity repeated 

thinnings will allow trees to adjust fairly slowly to more open 

conditions. This treatment provides information directly 

usable in stands where multiple entries are economical, access 

is fairly easy, risk of windthrow is high, and continuous 

protection by overstory trees is desirable.

Moderate Density Treatment Prescription

This presecription will reduce tree density in areas 

initially thinned to 80 TPA down to 30 TPA (35 TPA with 

snag allowance) 12 years after the initial thinning (see table 

11 on page 38 for the thinning schedule). This will be the 

last thinning for this treatment. It will retain existing riparian 

buffers, except as described below.

This prescription was selected to maximize the scientific 

value of the DMS. Preliminary results of vegetation and 

other analyses indicate that the Phase One thinnings were 

fairly conservative. In hindsight it is clear that a wider range 

of treatments is desirable to bracket the possible range of 

conditions. Traditionally, the choice of thinning intensities was 

influenced by growth-growing stock relationships and stand 

stability considerations. The proposed thinning to 30 TPA goes 

below “conventional” density levels. The site will not likely 

be fully occupied by overstory trees, and the treatment will 

result in lower growth (per acre) of the overstory. Thinning 

to levels below full site occupation provides a scientific 

baseline for conditions where lack of a closed canopy changes 

microclimatic conditions and a large amount of site resources 

are available for other (than overstory) stand components, such 

as understory vegetation or regeneration.

This proposed action represents an attempt to accelerate 

the development of late-successional habitat in two thinning 

entries. Even though not originally envisioned as such, the 

original entry can be viewed as a “preparation cut.” The 

stands grew at a fairly high density and trees had low live 

crown ratios and high height-to-diameter ratios. Concerns 

about tree stability after exposure by a single high intensity 

thinning were addressed by first “opening up” the stand to 

80 TPA and allowing the residual tree crowns to recover 

and height-to-diameter ratios to decrease. At the same time, 

our measurements and observations indicate that understory 

vegetation did not respond significantly to the original 

thinning. Because tree architecture has had 12 years to adjust 

to more open conditions, rethinning to 30 TPA (35 TPA with 

snag allowance) in one thinning entry should not substantially 

degrade stability. However, we expect the understory 

vegetation, which has developed rather slowly during the first 

12 years, to respond quickly to the increased resources after 

the second thinning, and the stands should start providing 

components of late-successional habitat fairly quickly.

From this treatment, we expect to gain information 

useful for management on a wider range of stand conditions, 

including cases where stands are opened up with a single 

intensive thinning. For example, in young or low density 

stands with high stability (that is, high live-crown ratios 

and lower height-to-diameter ratios), the initial entry may 

not be necessary to improve tree stability. While we will 

not be able to do replicated comparisons of a single entry 

with multiple thinnings, the treatment response may provide 

useful information to assess potential outcomes when dense 

stands are opened up with a single, very intensive thinning. 

The conversion of the two-tree-height riparian buffers 

to a streamside riparian buffer (see below) will provide 

complementary information for these conditions.

 A third reason for this treatment is the location of 

alternative riparian buffers within the MD treatment areas. 

Initial analyses of microclimate and amphibian habitat found 

few effects of varying riparian buffer widths; they did buffer 

the impact of thinning the upland area to 80 TPA (85 TPA 

with snag allowance). Lowering the upland density to 30 TPA 

(35 TPA with snag allowance) will result in a higher contrast 

between upland areas and riparian buffers. We expect more 

differences regarding the effectiveness of the riparian buffers 

to become evident under these conditions.

Study Design 
Variable Density Treatment Prescription

This prescription will provide another cornerstone of 

information by creating a very high level of structural diversity 

within a stand. It will be used to investigate the relative 

importance of various sub-treatments (for example, patch 

cuts and leave islands) and provide a reference for evaluating 

spatial scale relationships found in the other treatments. Thus, 

future thinning densities should be comparable to rethinnings 

in the HD and MD treatments. We plan to duplicate the 

prescriptions listed above for the variable density treatment 

in areas currently with 120 TPA and 80 TPA, respectively. 

In addition, we plan to thin the area currently in 40 TPA to 

20 TPA (25 TPA with snag allowance). Thus, we maintain 

within-stand structural diversity while enhancing differences 

within this treatment over time. A decision concerning 

whether or not to conduct a further thinning in the high density 

portion of this treatment will be made after the second round 

of thinnings are completed and assessed.

Provisions Common to All Treatments

Patch Cuts

We intend to maintain but not increase the existing 

openings created with patch cuts in the Phase One thinning 

in all proposed rethinnings. Although created openings are 

steadily shrinking as stands develop, further manipulation, 

for example, enlarging openings or feathering opening edges, 

would be confounding with the thinnings. In addition, the 

ability to increase opening size is very limited in most DMS 

stands due to space constraints. Information from other 

studies about survival of conifer seedlings under various 

light conditions can be used in conjunction with our light 

measurements in the openings to make some prediction about 

the impact of opening size on tree regeneration.

Existing openings span a range of opening sizes and 

environmental effects. Ongoing spatial analysis of opening 

size and neighborhood conditions will be enhanced and 

extended as the neighboring stand is thinned to a lower 

residual density. Rethinning will provide new data on gap 

closure rates, the effects of gap closure on vegetation, and gap 

edge response to changing light environments. These data will 

facilitate predictions about the effects of creating openings of 

alternative sizes and spatial arrangements and their effect on 

the development of late-successional habitat.

Leave Islands

We plan to maintain the leave islands created in the Phase 

One thinning in all proposed rethinnings for reasons similar to 

those outlined above for openings. Initial analyses (Wessell, 

2005) of the effects of leave island size on low-mobility 

species indicate that small (0.25- to 0.5-acre) leave islands 

may not be very effective in providing refugia or other benefits 

of dense forest cover. However, the value of these features may 

increase over time as stands are opened up through repeated 

thinnings. In addition, leave islands will likely experience 

some density-dependent tree mortality and thus provide a 

future source of smaller snags.

Understory Trees, Shrubs, and Herbs

Understory vegetation contributes to species richness 

in the short term and to desired stand structure in the long 

term. Development of diverse and well-established understory 

vegetation to support a variety of arthropod and wildlife 

species is one of the main goals of the overstory thinnings. 

Many of the openings created through patch cutting are also 

sources of abundant shrubs and hardwood trees. Conifer 

seedlings of several species were planted in the gaps soon after 

the initial patch cuts to ensure that conifers also were present. 

We do not plan any manipulations of shrub and herb 

components within gaps because gaps are sources of 

biodiversity, gaps have a limited spatial extent (10 percent 

or less of the treated stands), observations to date indicate 

conifers will persist as a component of gap vegetation, and 

understory competition control treatments intended to promote 

conifers would reduce or eliminate desirable stand components 

that contribute to species and structural diversity. We will 

continue to monitor vegetation within gaps and assess the need 

for further manipulation to ensure conifer emergence.

Some areas within the treatments support dense patches 

of conifer reproduction. Dense conifer regeneration reduces 

understory vegetation, potentially leading to a depauperate 

understory. At this stage, no manipulation of understory 

regeneration is planned. We expect seedling and understory 

mortality from logging damage due to the harvesting activities 

planned for 2009-2011. Development of tree regeneration 

will be monitored, and the need for future thinning will be 

assessed following these harvests. Precommercial thinning 

will be prescribed and implemented in thinned areas and 

gaps where large patches greater than 1 acre of conifer 

reproduction exceed 80 TPA. Conifer understory density 

following precommercial thinning should be between 50 TPA 

and 60 TPA. 

Riparian Buffer Study

Within the context of the Density Management Study, 

the Riparian Buffer Study is designed to characterize 

(1) interactive effects of upland density management 

treatments and riparian buffers, (2) effects of streamside 

no-harvest zones of different widths on spatial and temporal 

variation in forest microclimate, vegetation structure and 

composition, and (3) associated habitat values for aquatic 

and riparian dependant organisms. Four riparian buffer 

configurations, differentiated by width, are being compared 

(fig. 3):

Two site-potential tree heights: This is the largest buffer 

width to be examined in our study. It is measured as a 

slope distance from the stream. In the NFP, this buffer 

is applied, as the interim default width, along fish-

 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
bearing streams until watershed analysis is conducted. 

Buffer widths can be modified on a case-by-case basis 

using information and interpretations in a watershed 

analysis. In our study, this buffer is generally applied 

to first- or second-order streams that may or may not 

have fish. 

One site-potential tree height: This buffer also is 

measured as slope distance from the stream. In the 

NFP, this buffer is applied to all non-fish-bearing 

streams with a definable channel and evidence of 

annual scour or deposition. It is an interim default 

width used prior to watershed analysis. In our study, 

this buffer is generally applied to first- or second-order 

streams that may or may not have fish.

Variable width: This buffer is not based on a fixed slope 

distance from the stream, but rather, its boundary 

depends upon on-site streamside ecological breaks in 

vegetation and slope character. Adjustment of riparian 

buffers to on-site ecological conditions is a concept 

consistent with the NFP and naturally follows from 

watershed analyses and on-site evaluations. This 

buffer is delineated during on-site activities. Where 

steep slopes, slumps, surface seeps, or distinct riparian 

vegetation occur, wider boundaries are marked. Where 

gentler slopes occur and upslope forest conditions 

extend to the stream, narrower buffers are used. A 

minimum slope distance of 50 ft is used to ensure 

a high degree of stream and streamside shading, 

and litter and wood inputs. This buffer is applied to 

intermittent, first- and second-order streams, that may 

or may not have fish.

Streamside retention: This buffer is the narrowest 

riparian buffer examined. The streamside retention 

does not have a single fixed distance, and hence 

the buffer width varies along the stream reach. 

This buffer retains trees that directly confer both 

streambank stability by their rooting position next 

to streams and overhead shading by their crowns 

extending over the channel. Retained trees are visually 

determined by examining overstory crown widths. 

In this study streamside retention delineation has 

resulted in retention of one to two standing trees away 

from the channel or at minimum those trees within 

approximately 20 ft of the channel. Buffers were 

extended to include unstable slopes or unique tree 

species in streamside areas. In this study, streamside 

retention buffers are used primarily in intermittent and 

first-order perennial channels, and sometimes along 

second-order perennial streams.

Control: Control stream reaches are identified at 

each study site. Streams and upslope areas adjacent 

to controls are left untreated, that is, no density 

management. The assumption underlying the uncut 

control is that reserve designation and the explicit 

passive management represents the most likely 

alternative to active management in the form of 

riparian buffer delineation and density management 

in adjacent upslope forest stands. The uncut controls 

provide characterization of interior forest conditions 

for stands having similar pre-treatment characteristics 

to those being thinned.

Figure 3. Conceptual representation of riparian buffer treatments being evaluated: two site-potential tree heights, 

one site-potential tree height, variable break, and streamside retention.

Study Design 
All four riparian buffer treatments are intended to 

moderate stream and channel microclimate and microhabitat 

responses to density management treatments imposed on 

adjacent upslope forests. However, the rationale for buffer 

delineation varies among the four buffer types. Buffers based 

on site-potential tree heights stem from the interim guidelines 

for riparian management under the NFP. Use of site-potential 

tree heights was developed primarily due to the potential 

benefits of wood and litter inputs to streams, and the effects 

of shading and other moderating influences on microclimate. 

Wide riparian buffers also ensure that debris torents entrain 

and deliver large wood to streams. The upslope extent of these 

buffers also reflects uncertainty about the degree to which 

the stream and riparian microclimate can be influenced by 

harvesting operations in adjacent stands. The two-tree-height 

buffer is a conservative guideline designed to minimize risks 

for altering stream and riparian habitats due to potential 

changes in light, temperature, relative humidity or wind 

velocity that may result from upslope density management. 

The one-tree-height buffer recognizes a lower risk associated 

with harvest adjacent to non-fish-bearing streams. This 

buffer can predictably provide substantial moderation of 

microclimate perturbation at the stream. Trees within this 

buffer zone potentially provide direct recruitment of coarse 

wood to the channel in the absence of large transport events.

The variable width and streamside retention buffers 

being tested in this study likewise are based on ecological 

rationale and are narrower than one site-potential tree height. 

The variable width buffer represents a more literal delineation 

between riparian and upland forest. Operative assumptions 

of the variable width buffer are that riparian areas have an 

inherent ability to buffer streams and habitats against adjacent 

upslope harvest effects, and that the riparian zone is the 

most important source of coarse wood to maintain channel 

processes and habitat quality. Variable width buffers were 

often delineated at vegetation or topographic “breaks” and 

may reduce landslide occurrence. The streamside retention 

buffer delineation is based on the premise that dominant 

values of riparian buffers in non-fish-bearing headwater 

streams include maintenance of bank stability, stream shading, 

and direct recruitment of vegetative litter and coarse wood. 

Depending on local features and adjacent stand conditions, 

the streamside retention buffers may or may not provide 

substantial stream-side amelioration of microclimate 

perturbations associated with density management, even 

though they may effectively buffer changes in stream water 

temperature. Documenation of microclimate effects associated 

with these buffer widths is a specific study objective.

At the onset of our study, very little was known about 

forested headwaters. In the design of the riparian buffer study, 

we applied different buffer widths to first- and second-order 

headwater streams occurring at our selected study sites with 

the assumption that the basic character of headwater streams 

was similar among reaches. However, stream reach character 

was not assessed a priori and was not a condition for reach 

inclusion in the buffer study. During our study design, we 

recognized the general lack of information on headwaters by 

including characterization of instream conditions and fauna 

as a specific study objective. We anticipated detection of 

species-specific habitat associations within our headwater 

stream sample, and consequently planned species-specific 

analyses of treatment effects to help control for the potentially 

different types of streams encountered. Results have indicated 

our sample includes perennial and spatially intermittent 

stream types, and fauna have strong associations with these 

hydrological classes. In our analyses of treatment effects on 

habitat conditions, we included some parameters that were 

specific to these hydrological types. 

The basic design of the Riparian Buffer Component is 

focused on the MD treatment and will not be altered during 

the second round of treatments. However, all riparian buffers 

should be viewed in the context of upland management. 

Rethinning in upland areas will greatly enhance the contrast 

between the buffer and the thinned areas and significantly 

alter edge conditions. Thus, by rethinning the uplands we will 

gain additional information about the importance and effects 

of leaving unthinned areas near streams (see discussion about 

riparian buffers under the MD treatment).

Based on strong feedback from scientists and managers, 

we also are planning more active management in areas near a 

limited number of stream reaches. We propose thinning down 

to 60 TPA (65 TPA with snag allowance) through the existing 

two-tree height buffers within the MD treatment at two study 

sites (Callahan Creek and Keel Mountain). In addition, we 

plan to thin through one-half of the existing variable-width 

riparian buffers in the HD treatment, also down to 60 TPA (65 

TPA with snag allowance), and retain one-half of the variablewidth buffers in the HD treatment. These thin-through areas 

will not have any special riparian buffer and will help frame 

interpretation of results. Selection of buffers to thin will be 

random unless operational constraints can not be mitigated. 

We also are exploring the potential to add five to six new sites 

in the Oregon Coast Range to test the thin-through approach.

The thinning of the two stream reaches with twotree-height buffers provides a case study of how stands 

may respond when only a single entry is used to convert 

dense stands to open conditions potentially favorable 

for development of late-successional habitat. We realize 

that reducing stand density to 60 TPA (65 TPA with snag 

allowance) in unthinned areas may increase the potential for 

blowdown. However, the limited blowdown observed in the 

study sites, combined with the relatively protected landscape 

position of these sites, has led us to conclude that the potential 

for producing useful information merits the increased risk. 

10 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Rethinning Study

The Rethinning Study should be viewed in conjunction 

with the Initial Thinning Study. A primary goal of the 

Rethinning Study is to provide a context for predicting future 

response of the initial thinning sites. Thus, matching the 

prescriptions to the Initial Thinning Study is very important. 

Although a direct comparison is not possible, that is, the 

rethinning sites do not have patch cuts and leave islands, 

the rethinning sites provide information about long-term 

development of various stand structural components. For 

example, the continuous “recovery” of live crown ratio or stem 

taper can be assessed on the rethinning sites and helps put 

the initial thinning treatments in perspective. We will use the 

response on the rethinning sites as a reference or validation 

point when we predict development of the initial thinning sites 

or use growth models to simulate overstory development of 

alternative treatments. 

Although a number of studies investigate development 

of young seedlings under various overstory densities, this 

information cannot be directly used to predict long-term 

future development. Seedlings are expected to become more 

light demanding as they get older and few studies investigate 

the growing conditions of saplings as they transition to the 

overstory. Thus, the rethinning sites also are very helpful in 

predicting future development of advanced regeneration and 

understory vegetation.

Rethinning Study treatments include:

Control (CON): a control with a single commercial 

thinning that reduced overstory density to 100+ TPA 

25–30 years ago. A preliminary assessment indicated 

that the development of overstory and understory 

conditions necessary to create late-successional 

habitat is not accelerated appreciatively at this stage. 

However, this treatment provides baseline data. We feel 

this baseline information is necessary as it links the 

different study sites in the statistical analysis. This is 

especially important because the study was replicated 

across sites, that is, each site has only one replication 

of the treatments. Because of the relatively high 

residual density of overstory trees, we are not planning 

to thin the understory.

Rethin (RET): This treatment includes the original 

thinning to 100+ TPA and a second thinning conducted 

as part of the DMS that reduced the density to a 

clumpy distribution of 30 to 60 TPA. We are planning 

a third thinning to reduce the overstory to 30 TPA, 

plus an additional five trees left for snag recruitment. 

This treatment is “paired” with the MD and HD 

treatments on the initial thinning sites in that the final 

residual density target (30 TPA) is the same in all three 

treatments. This pairing will facilitate analysis and 

modeling of future stand trajectories. 

The primary goal of the treatment is to maintain and 

encourage the development of structural diversity, 

especially in the understory layers. The two 

thinnings already implemented facilitated understory 

regeneration of various species, including Douglas-fir 

and western hemlock. To maintain growth of advanced 

regeneration and avoid unstable conditions, such 

as unfavorable height/diameter ratios of seedlings, 

requires more growing space. Advanced regeneration 

is clumpy and dense in many spots. The additional 

thinning is intended to open the canopy to a level that 

advanced regeneration can maintain strong growth and 

vigor. 

Thinning the stand again will damage some seedlings, 

especially seedlings of larger size classes. However, 

with careful logging we expect that the advanced 

regeneration will still be sufficient to provide a 

significant component of future stand structure. 

The precommercial thinning prescription will take 

harvesting damage into account.

Understory Trees, Shrubs, and Herbs

Understory vegetation contributes to floral and faunal 

species richness in the short term and to desired stand structure 

in the long term. Development of diverse and well-established 

understory vegetation is one of the main goals of the overstory 

thinnings and patch cuts. Because of the importance of 

shrubs and herbs as sources of biodiversity and because tree 

regeneration has become established in many portions of the 

stands, we do not plan any direct manipulations of shrub and 

herb components of the understory. Understory competition 

control activities intended to promote conifers, for example, 

removing hardwoods, would reduce or eliminate desirable 

stand components that contribute to species and structural 

diversity.

Natural regeneration on rethinning sites ranges from very 

dense to very sparse. Dense conifer regeneration, particularly 

of western hemlock, reduces understory vegetation, potentially 

leading to a depauperate understory. We also expect seedling 

and understory mortality in seedling patches from logging 

damage due to the harvesting activities planned for 2009-2011. 

The status of tree regeneration will be monitored immediately 

following the third thinning and the need for precommercial 

thinning will be assessed. Precommercial thinning will be 

prescribed and implemented in large patches (greater than 

1 acre) of dense conifer reproduction that exceeds 80 TPA. 

Conifer understory density following precommercial thinning 

should be between 50 TPA and 60 TPA. To ensure tree 

species diversity, thinning will focus on cutting “majority” 

and retaining “minority” species (see “Species Choice” on 

page 13).

Study Design 11
Provisions Common to All Studies

Snags

Large snags are an important characteristic of latesuccessional habitat and typically are in short supply in 

young managed forests. Several considerations complicate 

decisions regarding snag recruitment and management in 

young stands. Snags will likely form immediately following 

timber harvest due to harvesting damage, increased respiration 

demands on residual trees, sudden exposure to direct sun of 

needles formed in the shade, and other factors such as bark 

beetles. The extent of harvest induced mortality varies, but 

should subside within 3 to 5 years. Chronic tree mortality 

will contribute a low level of snags throughout the life of the 

stand as a result of competition, root pathogen pockets, and 

other sources. Episodic mortality also will contribute to the 

total snag pool through periodic blowdown, snow and ice 

breakage, insect or pathogen outbreaks, or fire. Although the 

likelihood of episodic mortality over the life of the stand is 

high, snag recruitment from such sources is highly variable 

and unpredictable. In addition, trees killed to provide snags 

at or near the time of thinning, when the trees are 10–16 in. 

diameter, are not available later as larger diameter snags that 

supply greater ecological and habitat values.

Because of the importance of snags to late-successional 

habitat and substantial deficits of snags in the existing stands, 

we established a goal of five large snags per acre in the 

thinned areas 10 years after timber harvest. Large snags will 

also form over time in control areas and within leave islands 

and stream buffers, but we have not established specific 

numerical objectives for these unthinned areas. Thus, thinning 

prescriptions call for leaving five additional TPA to ensure 

the snag goal can be attained (for a total of 25, 35 or 65 TPA 

corresponding with the 20, 30, or 60 TPA live tree targets). We 

will monitor whether mortality in the residual overstory meets 

this objective within 10 years. If snag objectives are not met 

we plan to create sufficient large snags to fill the deficit. We 

expect that in many treatments natural mortality will provide 

for snags and no further snag creation will be needed. By 

documenting which snags were “natural” versus “created,” we 

will be able to quantify natural snag recruitment and compare 

development, usage, and longevity of the two types of snags.

Small snags also contribute to wildlife habitat and 

ecological functions. Control areas, leave islands, stream 

buffers, and other unthinned areas contain a range of tree 

sizes at fairly high densities, likely leading to high mortality 

in the smaller size classes. We anticipate that abundant small 

snags will be created through competition and other factors in 

these areas, and have not established numerical objectives for 

smaller snags. We will monitor the number and development 

of small snags as part of our overstory monitoring protocol.

The final residual live tree density target following 

commercial thinning of 30 TPA in the moderate and high 

density treatments, and in most of the variable density 

treatment, also provides a pool of trees for potential long-term 

snag recruitment. These trees function as live and dead tree 

habitat, as sources of regeneration and as future snags and 

downed wood. We plan an analysis comparing the amount 

of snags present relative to desired future stand conditions at 

every re-measurement. Additional snags can be created in the 

future if needed to achieve the desired future stand conditions. 

However, we expect that in most cases natural mortality 

processes will provide sufficient large snags over the next 50 

to 100 years.

Downed Wood

Downed wood generally is lacking in intensively 

managed landscapes and is a crucial part of late-successional 

habitat. Many of the same considerations discussed above 

under “Snags” apply to the discussion of downed wood. The 

DMS “Desired Future Stand Conditions” call for 900 linear ft 

of logs, 1/3 greater than 24-in. diameter and the rest coming 

from logs 10–24 in. diameter when the stands are 120–150 

years old. All decay classes are to be represented. Although 

some ecological values are associated with small logs, larger 

logs provide habitat for a greater range of organisms and 

support more ecological functions. Stands in the DMS have 

not yet attained sufficient diameter to provide logs of 24-in. 

diameter, although the rethinning sites are approaching this 

target. Our primary approach is to target attainment of the 

downed wood objective later in stand development. The study 

objective is to reach one-half of the Desired Future Stand 

Condition targets at year 100, and full attainment by year 150. 

Analysis of remeasurement data will determine if additional 

logs will need to be created by management actions to meet 

this objective.

In addition to measurements and actions aimed toward 

reaching the downed wood targets in the long term, we also 

prescribe a minimum level of downed wood in the short term. 

Two dominant or co-dominant TPA should be felled from 

thinned areas as downed wood during thinning operations. 

Existing, recently downed trees (class 1 or 2 logs) can be used 

to satisfy this requirement. Current downed wood levels vary 

across and within sites, and additional logs will be created 

naturally from snag fall, storm damage, or other sources over 

time. These factors combine to create spatially and temporally 

variable levels of downed wood in keeping with the high 

variability in dead wood found in natural stands. Provision of 

two additional logs per acre also applies to the third thinning 

in the HD treatment and in the high density portions of the VD 

treatment during future operations.

12  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Species Choice

To ensure maximum tree species diversity, thinning will 

focus on cutting “majority” and retaining “minority” species. 

Thinning operations should not remove any tree species that 

make up less than 10 percent of the overstory. Overstory 

tree species greater than 10 percent of the overstory should 

generally be removed in proportion to their abundance. 

Residual overstory trees of all conifer species, but not 

hardwood species, will be counted toward target tree density.

Treatment Assignment 

A primary limitation of the Initial Thinning and Riparian 

Buffer studies is that treatments were not assigned completely 

randomly. For the most part, this was due to the necessity 

of having multiple stream reaches available for the Riparian 

Buffer Study in the MD and control treatments of the Initial 

Thinning Study. Thus, the presence of streams dictated where 

the MD and Control treatments could be located. On most 

sites, the assignment of these two treatments to two units 

with streams was done randomly, and the assignment of 

the HD and VD treatments to the two other units was done 

randomly. However, on some sites, other operational factors 

also constrained treatment assignment, for example, road 

construction costs and effects. The Site History appendix 

(appendix E) gives the details of treatment assignment for 

each site. Non-random treatment assignment may or may not 

have biased some of our results and therefore limits our ability 

to apply and interpret inferential statistics. These limitations 

are discussed in the section “Scope of Inference” for each 

component study.

Study Sites

Site Selection Process

Study sites were initially intended to be broadly 

representative of forest lands managed by the BLM in western 

Oregon and to include sites in the Cascade, Coast, and 

Klamath provinces. A decision was made to focus first in the 

Cascade province because it was believed that implementation 

would be less complex than in other provinces. Site selection 

began in 1993 and was completed in 1995. Eventually, BLM 

silviculturists and Dr. Tappeiner realized that the study design 

was not feasible for the Klamath province, and a decision was 

made to drop further consideration of the Klamath province 

in 1996. The high heterogeneity of forest stands in southern 

Oregon and site conditions that were significantly different 

from other study sites in the Cascade and Coast provinces 

led to this decision. This decision resulted in 12 study sites 

broadly representative of mesic, low-elevation forests in the 

Cascade and Coast provinces of western Oregon (table 2).

Each west-side BLM district was provided site selection 

criteria for the Initial Thinning Study and asked to screen their 

upcoming thinning sales for potential study sites. Although 

there were minor changes over time, the criteria attached to the 

March 29, 1994 BLM State Office directive (appendix B) were 

widely used for site selection. These criteria included:

1. Preference for sites that are in the General Forest 

and Connectivity land use allocations in the BLM 

resource management plans

2. Stands should be between 30–50 years old

3. Sites should be at least 200 acres in size and capable 

of subdivision into four 50 or more acre units

Study Sites 13

Table 2. Study sites.

Site Province BLM District Study type(s) Year selected

Bottomline Coast Range Eugene Initial thinning, riparian buffer 1993

Keel Mountain Cascade Range Salem Initial thinning, riparian buffer 1993

OM Hubbard Coast Range Roseburg Initial thinning, riparian buffer 1994

North Soup Coast Range Coos Bay Initial thinning, riparian buffer 1995

Green Peak Coast Range Salem Initial thinning, riparian buffer 1995

Ten High Coast Range Eugene Initial thinning, riparian buffer 1995

Delph Creek Cascade Range Salem Initial thinning, riparian buffer 1995

Perkins Creek Cascade Range Eugene Rethinning, riparian buffer 1995

Little Wolf Coast Range Roseburg Rethinning 1995

Blue Retro Coast Range Coos Bay Rethinning 1995

Sand Creek Coast Range Salem Rethinning 1995

Callahan Creek Coast Range Salem Riparian buffer 1996
Figure 4. Study sites.

Lane

Douglas

Linn

Coos

Marion

Clackamas

Polk

Lincoln

Clatsop

Tillamook

Klamath

Yamhill

Benton

Columbia

Washington Multnomah

Curry Jackson

Ten High

Blue

R

etro

B

otto

mline

Gre

en P

e

a

k

O

M

Hub

b

ard

Little

W

olf

P

erkins Cre

e

k

N

orth S

oup

Cre

e

k

S

and

Cre

e

k

D

elph Cre

e

k

K

e

el M

ountain

C

allahan Cre

e

k

D

e

n

sity

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

nt a

n

d

Rip

a

ria

n

B

u

f

f

e

r

Stu

d

y

A

r

e

a

s

within

W

e

ste

r

n

O

r

e

g

o

n

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land ManagementOregon State Office

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate usewith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. Thisinformation may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This productwas developed through digital means and may be updated without notification. 0 30 60 90 120 15

Miles

Oregon

L

e

g

e

n

d

T

hin

nin

g

Sit

e

Ty

p

e

Initial T

hin

nin

g

Site

R

ethin

nin

g

Site

State

B

o

u

n

d

ary

C

o

u

nty

B

o

u

n

d

ary

14  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
4. Stand conditions should be relatively homogeneous

5. Avoid Tier One Key Watersheds and watersheds 

where watershed analysis has not been completed

6. Presence of streams is a positive factor because 

streams are necessary to implement the Riparian 

Buffer Study

7. Avoid stands that have experienced or are likely to 

experience significant wind damage

8. Avoid stands with extensive root disease

Criteria used for the Rethinning Study were similar, but 

tailored to the Rethinning Study design. Sites were selected 

from the pool of study sites used in a prior retrospective young 

stand biodiversity study conducted on BLM-managed lands 

(Baily, 1996; Bailey and Tappeiner, 1998). These criteria 

included:

1. Prefer sites that are in the General Forest and 

Connectivity land allocations in the BLM resource 

management plans

2. Stands should be between 50–80 years old and 

previously commercially thinned 

3. Sites should be at least 40 acres in size and capable of 

subdivision into two 20 or more acre units

4. Stand conditions should be relatively homogeneous

5. Avoid Tier One Key Watersheds and watersheds 

where watershed analysis has not been completed

6. Avoid stands that have experienced or are likely to 

experience significant wind damage

7. Avoid stands with extensive root disease

8. Stands should show evidence of understory 

development following the first commercial thinning.

Resource specialists evaluated sites based on the criteria 

above, ranked sites considering all criteria, and selected study 

sites in consultation with Dr. John Tappeiner (study PI), 

Charley Thompson (study coordinator), and local decisionmakers. Selected sites met these criteria, although the initial 

thinning study sites are somewhat older (50–80 years) than 

originally sought.

Study Locations

Seven sites host a full set of the DMS Initial Thinning 

Study Treatments (three in the BLM Salem District, two 

in the BLM Eugene District, and one each in the BLM 

Roseburg and BLM Coos Bay Districts; fig. 4 on page 14). 

An eighth site, Callahan Creek in the BLM Salem District, 

contains a partial implementation of the Initial Thinning Study 

Treatments sufficient to support the Riparian Buffer Study 

design. In addition, three similar sites in the Siuslaw National 

Forest contain thinned stands with alternative riparian buffers. 

Although these sites are not considered part of the DMS, they 

expand the scope of the Riparian Buffer Study in the Coast 

Range. Rethinning treatments are located on four sites (one 

each in Eugene, Roseburg, Salem, and Coos Bay Districts; 

fig. 4). Site location and summary information is contained in 

fig. 4 and table 2; detailed site histories are in appendix E.

Component Studies

Vegetation Response - Klaus Puettmann and 

Shanti Berryman (OSU)

Introduction

The foundation underlying the DMS lies in findings 

that old-growth forests may have developed differently than 

current young managed stands (Tappeiner et al., 1997; Bailey 

and Tappeiner, 1998; Poage and Tappeiner, 2001). Many oldgrowth stands apparently initiated at relatively low densities, 

as evident by rapid diameter rates of growth over the first 100 

years (Tappeiner et al., 1997; Poage and Tappeiner, 2001; but 

see Winter et al., 2002). In contrast, trees in current young 

managed stands tend to grow more slowly at high densities. 

The effects of thinning on various ecosystem responses 

have been the subjects of multiple studies, most of them 

focused on timber productivity. Residual overstory trees 

respond to thinning by increasing crown, branch and 

diameter growth (Marshall and Curtis, 2002). It is important 

to note that different stand components, such as dominant 

versus understory trees, may respond differently to thinning 

operations (Miller and Williamson, 1974; Oliver and Murray, 

1983). However, over time, overstory trees may “close in” and 

increasing competition slows the growth of residual trees.

Opening the canopy increases light availability in the 

understory (Parker et al., 2001) and, especially on drier sites, 

may increase soil moisture (Everett and Sharrow, 1985). These 

altered conditions, if they persist through time, may allow 

establishment of a multi-layered canopy by encouraging crown 

extension and development of advanced tree regeneration 

(Bailey et al., 1998), and may encourage more abundant and 

diverse understory vegetation layers (Alaback and Herman, 

1988; Carey and Johnson, 1995; Gilliam et al., 1995; Klinka 

et al., 1996; Qian et al., 1997; Bailey et al., 1998; Thomas 

et al., 1999; Thysell and Carey, 2000; Parker et al., 2001; 

Thysell and Carey, 2001; Muir et al., 2002; Lindh and Muir, 

2004). Well-developed and diverse understory layers offer 

Component Studies 15
more suitable habitat for several species commonly found in 

late-successional forests (McComb et al., 1993; Carey and 

Johnson, 1995; Hayes et al., 1997; Franklin et al., 2002). 

The structure and composition of understory layers is 

important as the disturbances related to thinning may facilitate 

invasion by exotic species (Bailey et al. 1998; Mack et al. 

2000; Thysell and Carey 2000; Beggs 2005), and may lead 

to dominance of certain clonal shrub species (Tappeiner 

and Zasada 1993; Messier and Mitchell 1994; Huffman and 

Tappeiner 1997; Thomas et al. 1999; He and Barclay 2000). 

Reduction of clonal species dominance after thinning may be 

achieved by considering both absolute density and vertical 

and horizontal structure of the overstory as it may impact 

understory composition (Berger and Puettmann 2000; Franklin 

et al. 2002; Franklin and Van Pelt 2004). 

It is important to distinguish among studies that 

investigate ecosystem response to thinning intended to 

enhance timber production (for example, Bailey et al. 1998; 

Thomas et al. 1999; Thysell and Carey 2000) from studies that 

use thinning to accelerate late-successional habitat. Residual 

thinning densities in timber production thinning studies are 

aimed at ensuring that the overstory tree layers are fully 

occupying the sites. These densities are usually too high to 

allow development of a diverse, well-developed understory. 

These thinnings usually favor crop trees (for example, 

Douglas-fir on most low elevation sites in western Oregon). 

Thinning aimed at increasing species diversity in the overand understory would instead discriminate against the major 

crop species and would ensure the maintenance or increased 

presence of minor species, especially hardwoods (as in the 

DMS treatments). Thinning for timber production typically 

does not consider impacts on advanced regeneration which can 

be damaged by the harvesting operation, or indirectly through 

thinning shock and/or higher mortality upon partial canopy 

removal (Tucker and Emmingham 1977; Tucker et al. 1987).

Timber production thinning prescriptions usually call 

for homogeneous densities of residual trees, ignoring the 

importance of variation on small spatial scales (Franklin 

and Van Pelt 2004). The inclusion of treatments that address 

small-scale variation may enhance overall structural and 

habitat diversity. For example, small gaps may provide 

open conditions, including high resource levels and altered 

microclimate conditions (Moore and Vankat 1986; Gray et 

al. 2002). This, in combination with the physical harvesting 

disturbance, may lead to recruitment and growth of early-seral 

herbs and shrubs in small gaps (Beggs 2005). These conditions 

are very different from the surrounding stands with lower 

light availability, which favor species that can tolerate shade 

(Tappeiner and Alaback 1989; Huffman and Tappeiner 1997; 

Beggs 2005). Alternatively, the inclusion of leave islands as 

part of management prescriptions will provide areas without 

soil disturbance or other harvesting disturbance, which allows 

species sensitive to these disturbances to persist (Beggs 2005, 

Wessell 2005). Leave islands also ensure the maintenance of 

dense conditions, thus ensuring variability of environmental 

and resource conditions within a stand (Franklin and Van Pelt 

2004). 

The DMS is unique as it includes treatments specifically 

aimed at increasing within-stand diversity of overstory 

conditions. The design allows for comparisons of overall 

stand responses and allows evaluation of the contribution of 

different stand components (such as stand matrix, gaps and 

leave islands) to the overall stand response. Thus, the DMS 

contributes to a basic understanding of ecosystem development 

and provides information that can be used directly by forest 

managers. 

Objectives

A primary objective of the DMS is to evaluate if 

alternative thinning treatments accelerate development 

of late-successional stand characteristics and vegetation 

communities (for example, large trees, late-seral understory 

species) in young Douglas-fir forests of the Cascade foothills 

and Coast Range in western Oregon. This objective is being 

met through two related sets of permanent plots. The first set, 

termed “Treatment Monitoring Plots,” is intended to document 

vegetation dynamics and average conditions across the entire 

treatment for the Initial Thinning Study Sites. They encompass 

the patch cuts and leave islands as well as the thinned areas, 

and will help determine the relative influence of each on the 

overall vegetation response to the treatments. A second set 

of plots, termed “Thinning Monitoring Plots,” is intended to 

evaluate overstory response and overstory/understory relations 

at the prescribed thinning densities. Plots are located only in 

areas where target thinning densities were achieved without 

influence from patch cuts and leave islands. In addition, plots 

were located to evaluate whether responses to thinning varied 

by location within a Riparian Reserve compared to areas 

outside of Riparian Reserves.

Methods

Study Sites

Vegetation plots are established on seven of the initial 

thinning sites (all except Callahan Creek) and all four 

rethinning sites. Two initial thinning sites (Keel Mountain and 

Delph Creek), and one rethinning site (Perkins Creek) are in 

the foothills of the Cascades, while all other sites are in the 

Oregon Coast Range.

Sampling Design

Vegetation response to the treatments is characterized 

by repeated sampling. The sites are treated as replicates 

(or blocks) in the study. The sampling design varies for 

the two sets of monitoring plots. These two plot networks 

were initiated at different times and have different research 

16  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
objectives. Consequently, the sampling protocols vary (see 

details in Sampling Methods and Sampling Protocol; http://

ocid.nacse.org/nbii/density/).

Treatment Plots

The treatment monitoring plots were installed six years 

post-harvest at initial thinning sites to represent the entire 

treatment area. At each site, locations of these plots were 

randomly selected within the four initial thinning treatments 

(control, HD, MD, VD). Twenty-one new plots were installed 

and sampled within each of the high density, moderate 

density, and variable density treatments. Fourteen new plots 

were installed and sampled within the control treatment. This 

resulted in 77 treatment plots sampled at seven initial thinning 

sites.

Random location of plots was performed using GIS 

site maps. Treatment boundaries were buffered so that plot 

boundaries are at least 50 ft from treatment boundaries. Plots 

were not accepted if they overlapped. In this case, new random 

points were generated until there was no overlap in plot 

locations. Plots were excluded from all riparian buffers, except 

the streamside retention buffer, and from active roads. Plots 

that landed on active roads or skid trails were shifted so they 

were not in the middle of the road, but next to the road. Plots 

that fell on inactive roads were included in the study.

Treatment plots were 0.25-acre circular plots (58.9 ft 

radius; fig. 5). Plot center was located using GPS and/or 

pacing along an azimuth from known points using maps and 

aerial photos for reference. Plot center was marked with 4.5 

ft PVC pipe and flagging. The PVC pipe was labeled with 

the following: treatment, plot number and “center.” Four 

subplots were installed at 30 ft from plot center in each 

cardinal direction (north, south, east and west). Subplots were 

0.005-acre circular plots (8.32 ft radius; fig. 5) and sub-plot 

centers were marked with 2.5 ft PVC pipe and flagging. 

The PVC pipe was labeled with plot number, treatment 

and the cardinal direction. All distances for plot layout and 

measurements were slope-corrected (that is, horizontal 

distance).

Thinning Plots

Thinning plots were installed at initial and rethinning 

sites following harvest (1–3 years post-harvest; table 3). 

Quarter-acre circular vegetation plots (58.9 ft radius) were 

established in each of the treatments. At each plot, a live 

overstory tree was selected as the plot center with the pith 

of the tree representing the exact center point. Within each 

0.25-acre plot, four circular sub-plots (0.005-acre) were 

established 50 ft from the plot center at the four cardinal 

directions (north, south, east and west). Subplot centers were 

permanently marked with plastic stakes. Five circular subplots 

Component Studies 17

Figure 5. Sampling schematic for the treatment plot vegetation survey showing the 

0.25-acre plot (red line circle) and the 0.005-acre nested subplots (yellow circles). 

Large coarse woody debris (LCWD) transects are shown connecting the subplot centers 

and the NE quarter section (gray) for stump measurements is also delineated. Diagram 

from Harmon and Sexton (1996).
were installed at the Bottomline site (plot center, north, south, 

east and west). The center subplot was not measured at the 

other sites and, therefore, data for the Bottomline center 

subplots were dropped for data consistency. All plot layout 

distances were slope-corrected.

Quarter-acre vegetation plots were established in both 

uplands and in Riparian Reserves. Riparian Reserves are 

a land allocation under the Northwest Forest Plan and are 

delineated at a fixed distance from stream center (one or two 

site-potential tree heights). Riparian Reserves were not always 

present in each treatment. The number of vegetation plots 

varied by treatment and by site (table 3). Plot location differed 

for the initial thinning and rethinning sites. 

Initial Thinning Sites

Thinning plots were established in the thinned portions 

of the high density, moderate density, and variable density 

treatments (three target densities), and in the unthinned 

control. Plots in the initial thinning sites were located 

only where tree density was ±20 percent of the treatment 

prescription (except at Bottomline, the first site sampled). 

Monitoring plots were not established in gaps or leave 

islands. Plot locations were mapped to fit on paper and were 

then located in the field. Plot centers were adjusted until 

the target density criterion was met. Only trees greater than 

7-in. diameter at breast height (dbh) were considered when 

estimating the target densities. In addition, plots were located 

within the treatments to maximize spatial dispersion over the 

treatment area.

Plots were established in Riparian Reserve areas that 

were thinned, and in unthinned areas. Riparian Reserve widths 

were usually one site-potential tree height (Riparian Reserves, 

as defined by the Northwest Forest Plan; USDA & USDI 

1994). Plots established in unthinned Riparian Reserves were 

in the control treatments and in the unthinned riparian buffers 

in other treatments. Plots never straddled the Riparian Reserve 

boundary. This plot selection procedure was not in place when 

the Bottomline plots were installed.

Rethinning Sites

Plots in the rethinning sites were established on a 

systematic grid in upland and riparian areas in the unthinned 

control and rethinning treatments. Grid spacing varied by site 

and was intended to achieve between 20–25 plots per site, if 

feasible. Riparian plots were located within Riparian Reserves, 

and did not straddle the Riparian Reserve boundary. 

Response Variables and Measurements

Many variables are being measured and monitored 

over the long term at these plots (table 4), including plot 

characteristics, overstory and understory vegetation structure 

and composition, volume of coarse woody debris, and 

substrate conditions. Variables collected at each plot differ 

slightly for the two studies. For specific differences, see the 

Sampling Methods and Sampling Protocol (http://ocid.nacse.

org/nbii/density/).

Treatment Plots

Overstory Stand Structure

All live trees and snags with dbh >2.0 in. within the 

0.25-acre plot were included in the tree survey. Snags were 

standing dead trees >4.5 ft tall. Trees were considered “in” the 

plot boundary if the center of the tree bole at breast height was 

within the 58.9 ft-radius plot. Each tree was tagged at breast 

height (metal tag facing plot center) with a number unique 

to the plot. All live and dead tree species were identified. 

Horizontal distance and azimuth from plot center to each tree 

bole were recorded. Measurements for each tree followed 

those in table 4. Live crown ratio, crown class and tree 

damage and condition were only recorded for live trees. Decay 

condition and wildlife usage were only recorded for snags.

Understory Vegetation

Understory vegetation (<20 ft tall), seedlings, and 

saplings were sampled in the 0.005-acre subplots (see 

table 4 for measurements). Estimates of absolute cover for 

individual plant species and life-form groups were made 

18  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

Table 3. Number of thinning plots (0.25-acre) at each site for the 

initial thinning and rethinning studies, separated by uplands and 

Riparian Reserves. 

Site Uplands Riparia 

Reserves 

Total

Initial thinning sites

Bottomline 29 17 46

OM Hubbard 28 23 51

Keel Mountain 20 28 48

North Soup 22 30 52

Green Peak 27 20 47

Ten High 24 29 53

Delph Creek 34 17 51

Total 184 164 348

Rethinning sites

Sand Creek 10 8 18

Little Wolf 15 8 23

Blue Retro 13 5 18

Perkins Creek 12 12 24

Total 50 33 83
Table 4. Response variables and descriptions for the vegetation monitoring plots. 

[Specific sampling details and codes (for example, decay condition codes) can be found online in the detailed Sampling Methods and Sampling Protocol (http://

ocid.nacse.org/nbii/density/)]

Variable Description

Physiography

Slope % slope

Aspect degrees east of north, using a compass

Elevation taken from GPS units or digital elevation model

Topographic position plot position in context of local relief (for example, ridge-top, slope, bench, toe, and floodplain)

Overstory (trees >2 in. dbh)

Number of trees number of trees per unit area, stratified by conifers and hardwoods and by individual species

Basal area stand basal area per unit area of trees, stratified by conifers, hardwoods, live and dead trees and 

by crown class

Diameter at breast height (dbh) diameter at breast height (4.5 ft above ground on uphill side) for all trees >2 in. dbh on the plot

Tree health healthy tree (yes or no)? Healthy = normally developed tree. Unhealthy = sickly or diseased 

tree (for example, bark or needles are sickly or not developed correctly); a damage code is 

recorded to indicate the cause of an unhealthy tree. A tree can be healthy if damage exists. 

Height total height for a sub-sample of conifer and hardwood trees

Live crown ratio ratio of live crown to the total tree height; based on height to live crown measurements: the 

point where the crown covers 2/3 of the tree bole

Crown class position of tree in the canopy

Tree damage and condition healthy or damaged: forked crown, broken crown, logging damage, fire scars, leaning tree, etc.

Decay condition characterized decay condition of snags

Wildlife usage characterized wildlife usage of snags based on size of excavations if present

Understory

Density of seedlings and saplings number of conifer and hardwood seedlings and saplings per unit area, measured in 0.005-acre 

subplots; seedlings = stem height between 6.0 in. and 4.5 ft; saplings = stem height 4.5 ft in 

height and diameter <2.0 in.; seedlings and saplings were recorded by species and included 

planted and natural regeneration

Cover of individual plant species absolute % cover of each plant species in the 0.005-acre subplots; cover did not exceed 100% 

for a given species

Cover of life-form groups: shrubs, forbs, 

ferns, grasses (including sedges/

rushes), hardwood and conifer trees 

absolute percent cover of each group in the 0.005-acre subplots; cover did not exceed 100% for 

a given group

Frequency of early seral, late seral and 

persistent forest understory species

derived from individual plant species data 

Cover of exotic species` absolute percent cover of exotic species in the 0.005-acre subplots; averaged from individual 

plant species data

Height of individual plant species average height of understory species

Understory vegetation composition presence and abundance (% cover) of vascular plants per plot

Beta diversity vascular plant species turnover between plots; calculated from individual plant species data

Alpha diversity species richness of vascular plants by plot; calculated from individual plant species data

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) and Stumps

Decay condition characterized decay condition of coarse woody debris and stumps

Number of stumps stump tally

Volume of CWD based on length and diameter estimates of large and small coarse woody debris. Small coarse 

woody debris logs were measured if the large end was >3 in. and <10 in. in diameter and was 

within the subplot perimeter. Large coarse woody debris logs were >10 in. in diameter. 

Substrate

Cover of stumps, boles, litter, logs, 

duff, bare soil, rocks, moss

absolute percent cover measured for substrate in 0.005-acre subplots (treatment plots only)

Component Studies 19
in the 0.005-acre subplots using cover classes: 1 percent = 

trace, 5 percent, 10 percent, then continuing in 10 percent 

increments to 100 percent. Species identifications were made 

following Pojar and Mackinnon (1994) and Hitchcock and 

Cronquist (1973). 

Coarse Woody Debris

Large coarse woody debris was measured along four 

directional transects, connecting the centers of the 0.005-acre 

subplots (fig. 5). Transects were northeast, southeast, 

southwest, and northwest. Logs positioned parallel to transects 

were ignored. Small coarse woody debris was measured 

within the 0.005-acre subplots. All measured logs were >1 ft 

in length and were identified to species if possible (see table 4 

for measurements). Logs at >45 degree angles above the 

ground were not considered down woody debris (M. Harmon, 

personal commun.). 

Stumps

All stumps in the northeast quarter section of the 

0.25-acre plot (or straddling the boundaries) were measured 

(fig. 5). Stumps were <4.5 ft tall (measured on the up-hill side) 

and >2 in. diameter at the top end. Stumps were either new 

man-made stumps from harvest, remnant stumps from before 

harvest, or natural stumps from blowdown. Stumps were 

identified to species if possible and measured for diameter and 

height. 

Substrate

Estimates of absolute cover for substrate groups were 

made using cover classes: 1 percent = trace, 5 percent, 

10 percent, then continuing in 10 percent increments to 

100 percent. 

Thinning Plots

Overstory Stand Structure

All live trees with dbh >2.0 in. within the 0.25-acre plot 

(58.9 ft radius) were included in the tree survey. All snags 

(standing dead trees >4.5 ft tall) and remnant stumps (old 

stumps from before the initial thin 10.0 in. dbh and 1 ft tall) 

within the 0.25-acre plot also were included in the survey. 

Remnant stumps were not recorded at the Bottomline site, but 

the protocol was amended and crews began sampling remnant 

stumps at all other sites. 

Trees were considered “in” the plot boundary if the center 

of the tree bole at breast height was within the 0.25-acre plot. 

Each tree was tagged at the base (metal tag facing plot center) 

with a unique number. All live and dead tree species were 

identified. Distance and azimuth from plot center to each tree 

bole were recorded. Measurements for each tree followed 

those in table 4. Live crown ratio, crown class and tree 

damage and condition were only recorded for live trees. Decay 

condition and wildlife usage were recorded only for snags.

One Douglas-fir tree per plot was selected arbitrarily 

(usually the largest tree on the plot, maximum dbh of 30 in.) 

as the “site tree.” In addition to measurements listed in table 4, 

height, live crown height, age at breast height (years), and 

growth increments at 5 and 10 years (1/20 in.) were measured 

for the site tree. In many cases, the site tree was the plot center 

tree.

Swiss needle cast monitoring was implemented at the 

Keel Mountain and Sand Creek sites only, in which estimates 

were made for crown density, foliage transparency, and 

crown dieback (following FHM protocol; see FIA Field 

Measurements for Phase 3, 2006, “Crowns: Measurement and 

Sampling” at http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/field-guides-methodsproc/). Estimates were made for the “height” trees at each 

plot. These measurements are in Excel spreadsheets, but are 

not included in the overall database because the data are not 

consistently collected.

Hardwood Clumps

Hardwood clumps were tagged at each plot (each clump 

received a clump tag number). The clump measurement 

procedure was changed after the Bottomline site was sampled. 

Thus, clump measurements at Bottomline are not consistent 

with other sites. A clump was defined as stems originating 

from a stump with a common root system and individual 

crowns were not discernable. The parent stump was not 

always evident; however, the clump generally had a circular 

arrangement around a central point. Clump species were 

identified, azimuth and distance to plot center was recorded 

and the following measurements were taken: mean stem 

height, mean clump width, number of stems <2 in. in the 

clump, and stem damages or condition. Individual stems in the 

clump >2.0 in. dbh were individually tagged and measured as 

trees, described above.

The clump data were not consistently collected across 

sites and sometimes the method of collection varied within 

sites. Therefore, subsequent visits to the sites will not include 

remeasurements of clumps. However, the tagged trees >2 in. 

in the clumps are included in the overstory tree data and will 

be remeasured upon future visits. These trees >2 in. in the 

clump will receive a “CL” in the remarks section, indicating 

that it is part of a hardwood clump. Clump data are stored in 

Excel spreadsheets but are not included in the DMS vegetation 

database.

Understory Vegetation

Understory vegetation, seedlings and saplings 

were sampled in the 0.005-acre subplots (see table 4 for 

measurements). Conifer seedlings and saplings were always 

tallied; however, hardwood seedlings and saplings were not 

consistently recorded at each site. 

20 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Estimates of absolute cover for individual plant species 

(no height limit) and life form groups were made in the 

0.005-acre plots. Plant identifications for all plots followed 

Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973), Pojar and Mackinnon 

(1994), and the Jepson Manual (Hickman, 1993). Cornus 

nuttallii, Prunus emarginata, Rhamnus purshiana, Salix spp., 

Lithocarpus spp. and Malus fusca were originally considered 

hardwood trees in 1997 measurements (Bottomline, OM 

Hubbard, Keel Mountain and Sand Creek sites). These 

species were later considered understory shrubs in subsequent 

site measurements and consequently, were edited out of 

the overstory data sets for Bottomline, OM Hubbard, Keel 

Mountain, and Sand Creek for consistency with the revised 

sample method.

Presence of vascular plant species associated with latesuccessional/old-growth forests (USDA and USDI, 1993) was 

recorded for the 0.25-acre plot. The species monitoring was 

included in the study to specifically evaluate the effects of this 

treatment on late-successional species.

Coarse Woody Debris

All large coarse woody debris logs were measured in 

the 0.25-acre plot. Small coarse woody debris was measured 

within the 0.005-acre subplots. All logs >1 ft in length were 

measured and identified to species (see table 4).

Stumps

All newly cut stumps (from the harvest) in the 0.25-acre 

plot were tallied in 2 in. diameter classes. Stumps were <1 ft 

tall (no minimum diameter cut-off). At rethinning sites, both 

stumps from the initial thinning and rethinning (that is, new 

and old stumps) were counted. Stumps were identified to 

species if possible. Stumps were considered “in” the 0.25-acre 

plot if the center of the stump was within the plot boundary.

Measurement Schedule

Remeasurements of both plot types are scheduled in 

5-year increments (see measurement schedule, tables 13 and 

14, page 45). Coarse woody debris and stumps are being 

remeasured every 10 years because they change slowly in the 

forest. Evaluation of the current data and future follow-up 

treatments may result in some modifications in the future 

remeasurement schedule at the thinning plots. 

Data Management 

Data are either entered directly into a computerized 

format using electronic polycorders or PDAs in the field, or 

recorded on paper data sheets. Electronic polycorder data 

collectors use error-checking routines built into the datacollection system to catch invalid or missing data while the 

crews are still on the plot. Data entered on data sheets are 

proofed in the field and later entered into a spreadsheet and 

crosschecked for data entry errors. All data sets are quality 

checked for errors by conducting summary statistical analysis 

and by graphing the results (following standard data-cleanup 

procedures). Erroneous data are field verified and corrected, or 

deleted from the data set (that is, only deleted when data are 

time-sensitive and clearly incorrect). Clean data will then be 

imported into the DMS vegetation database.

All clean data are in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and in 

an Access database that is still undergoing development. Excel 

spreadsheets of the raw data are retained. All data are currently 

stored on the Oregon State University server, which is backed 

up off site every night. The vegetation data ultimately will 

be stored in the Oregon State University Forest Science Data 

Bank. 

A data management protocol has been developed to 

maintain consistency and quality control for data collected 

and entered into the database each year. A metadata specialist 

with the National Biological Information Infrastructure 

(NBII; http://www.nbii.gov) has developed the project 

metadata following NBII standards. Metadata will be updated 

on a yearly basis. In addition, The Northwest Alliance for 

Computational Science and Engineering, a partner with NBII, 

is assisting with the development of the DMS vegetation 

database. Datasets from the DMS Vegetation Study will be 

available through the DMS website (http://ocid.nacse.org/nbii/

density/).

Analysis

Data analyses will assess initial vegetation response 

to the thinning treatments within the first years following 

harvest (thinning plot data: 1 to 3 years; treatment plot 

data: 6 years). Subsequent analyses will evaluate changes in 

vegetation response over time (using repeated measurements 

taken at 5-year increments). The analysis approaches will 

follow a randomized block design, where treatments were 

replicated across sites (that is, blocks = sites; seven blocks 

in the Initial Thinning Study; four blocks in the Rethinning 

Study). Treatment averages will be calculated to evaluate 

differences in overstory and understory vegetation dynamics 

and conditions in the thinning treatments (that is, the treatment 

plots including gaps and leave islands) and in homogeneous 

thinning conditions (that is, the thinning plots, only where 

target densities were achieved).

Analyses will evaluate effects of the treatments on 

various aspects of overstory and understory vegetation 

structure and composition. Pre-harvest data are not available 

for these sites; therefore, all thinning treatments will be 

compared to the unthinned controls to evaluate treatment 

effects. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple 

comparison tests (that is, pre-determined contrasts: thinned 

versus unthinned; and contrasts comparing thinned treatments) 

will be used to assess differences in vegetation responses 

among treatments. Sites are random effects and treatments 

are fixed effects in the ANOVA analyses. When evaluating 

thinning effects on vegetation dynamics over time, initial 

overstory conditions (from the first measurement date) will 

Component Studies  21
be used as covariates in the ANOVA models. All ANOVA 

statistical procedures will be performed using SAS software 

(SAS Institute Inc., 2001). 

Overstory

All evaluations of treatment effects for overstory 

vegetation will be made using ANOVA. Overstory tree growth 

(average tree growth and growth per hectare) will be compared 

among thinning treatments (for selected species where degrees 

of freedom >20). Differences in growth of dominant trees 

(for example, 10 or 20 largest trees/ha) also will be compared 

among treatments to determine if the DMS thinning treatments 

are accelerating large tree development. Crown development 

of overstory trees will be compared among treatments using 

average crown ratio or percent live crown of selected species 

where degrees of freedom >20.

Understory

Treatment averages will be calculated for understory 

vegetation cover, variability (coefficient of variation for 

mean cover) and frequency for life-form groups, seral groups 

and exotic species. ANOVA and multiple comparison tests 

(described above) will be used to determine differences in 

understory vegetation cover among the thinning treatments. 

Patterns of community composition within and among 

sites will be evaluated using non-metric multidimensional 

scaling (NMS) (Kruskal, 1964; Mather, 1976) ordination and 

will be related to stand and site characteristics (for example, 

physiography, overstory structural characteristics, initial site 

condition factors, seedling and sapling density, and harvest 

disturbance factors) and treatments (thinning treatments 

and sub-treatments, patch cuts and leave islands). Multiple 

response parametric procedure (MRPP) (Berry et al., 1983; 

Mielke, 1984) and indicator species analysis (ISA) (Dufrêne 

and Legendre, 1997) will be used to determine potential 

differences in understory communities among treatments 

and to identify indicator species driving these differences. 

Evaluation will be made on how sub-treatments (patch cuts 

and leave islands) contribute to overall treatment variation in 

understory vegetation communities using NMS ordination, 

MRPP, and ISA analyses. Frequency distributions of species 

in the gaps, leave islands, and forest matrix areas also will be 

evaluated. NMS ordination, MRPP, and ISA analyses will be 

performed using PCORD software (McCune and Mefford, 

1999). 

Plant communities will be analyzed in the riparian and 

upslope locations with the thinning plots to help assess the 

impact of less intensive sampling schemes for the thinning 

plots (that is, possibly reducing sample size for 0.25-acre 

thinning plots or dropping some Riparian Reserve plots).

Summaries of coarse woody debris (large and small) 

will be made at the treatment level for all sites and will be 

monitored through time. We will determine if the amount 

and characteristics of the coarse woody debris meet the latesuccessional objectives of the DMS. 

Application of Results

Scope of Inference

The inference scope of any experiment is defined as the 

range of conditions to which the study results are applicable. 

Consequently, applicability of study results will vary with the 

study component and with the degree of confidence required 

for managers to derive or justify their decisions. The range 

of study locations and stand conditions defines the inference 

scope of the DMS. Although study sites were not selected 

randomly, they are representative of a large portion of BLM 

lands in western Oregon. The site locations range from just 

south of Mt. Hood to north of Coos Bay, from the western 

slopes of the Cascades to the central Coast Range. No study 

sites were located in southwestern Oregon (Medford district 

of the BLM). The sites cover a range of ecological conditions 

as they represent a wide gradient in latitude, elevation, and 

soil and climate conditions. The experimental design does 

not include replications within a site; thus, sites have to be 

considered case studies for their specific conditions. However, 

replications across sites allow statistical analysis within the 

larger inference scope (defined by the range of site conditions, 

see site history tables, appendix E). 

A second dimension of inference scope includes the stand 

conditions represented on the study sites. Sites were selected 

to be homogeneous, fully stocked with conifers (mainly 

Douglas-fir), within a narrow age range (50–90 years), and 

without major disease issues. All these constraints define the 

stand conditions to which the results may be applicable. The 

minimum size criterion (that is, about 200 acres) for selection 

of the study sites has to be considered an artifact of the 

experiment. The minimum treatment area of approximately 

25+ acres (target area was 50 acres for the DMS initial 

thinning treatments) is sufficient to characterize “within-stand 

conditions” and stand-level results can be scaled up to larger 

areas. On the other hand, small-scale results, (for example, 

information about gap partitioning) may apply at a sub-stand 

scale. 

Further analysis will provide more information about the 

proper inference scope of these findings. For example, trends 

that are consistent across all initial and rethinning sites are 

likely so robust that the inference scope of the results includes 

the full range of conditions covered by the study. With lack 

of alternative information sources, managers may even feel 

comfortable applying these results beyond the conditions 

represented in the study. Other results may show inconsistent 

responses across study sites. Analysis of these trends may 

indicate whether they vary along moisture, climate, soil, stand 

age or other conditions specific to the sites. This information 

will help managers decide whether their local conditions fall 

within the inference scope of the study. 

22  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
The inference scope of specific responses, such as 

absolute growth of individual species, is very limited (in most 

cases) to the study sites. Other information (for example, 

whether the understory vegetation responds to reduction in 

overstory density) is more general and most managers may 

feel very comfortable expanding the inference scope beyond 

the specific study site conditions. Lastly, judgments as to 

whether extrapolation of our results to other conditions is 

acceptable also will benefit from consideration of other related 

studies, such as the Young Stand Thinning and Diversity Study 

(Willamette National Forest).

Expected Outcomes

Although numerous thinning studies in the PNW provide 

basic information about effects of density management on 

timber growth and yield, we lack an understanding of the 

effects of thinning practices on other ecosystem structures, 

processes, and dynamics. This is especially crucial because, 

under the Northwest Forest Plan, the area with regeneration 

harvests has substantially declined on Federal lands, and 

thinning provides a significant portion of the harvested timber. 

Thus, we expect to develop information on how various 

components of late-successional habitat are influenced by 

alternative thinning practices. Standard thinning operations 

aimed at maximizing economic return will not accelerate or 

provide for aspects of late-successional habitat. As part of 

this study, we also will determine the impact of modifying 

“traditional” thinning practices. These modifications include 

variable density thinnings, harvesting gaps, and leaving 

reserve islands of various sizes. By separating the ecosystem 

responses to the various components, we will provide 

the information necessary for managers to assess what 

combination of management practices (that is, homogeneous 

thinnings, gaps, leave islands, plantings) best fit their local 

conditions and management objectives. 

We expect to provide basic information about the impact 

of thinning on growth and yield of residual trees. In addition, 

the residual trees will be stratified to match different latesuccessional characteristics, such as large-super-dominant 

trees and small trees that provide lower canopy layers. We will 

document how thinning affects canopy layering and crown 

sizes and development. 

We will provide data to predict the impact of overstory 

manipulations on understory vegetation. Together with other 

studies, we hope to assess the relative impact of pre-treatment 

conditions, direct disturbance effects (for example, harvesting 

traffic), and altered environmental and resource conditions 

after the harvesting treatments. Hereby, we plan to describe 

both the abundance and the species composition of these 

structural components.

At the same time, we provide the basic vegetation 

response that can be used by other researchers to characterize 

the impact of density management on visual quality or 

habitat conditions. We hope to facilitate the development of 

a predictive model that integrates these aspects and simulates 

the response of various ecosystem components to alternative 

thinning treatments. 

Already, the exposure of field managers to the DMS 

sites and information from the DMS and related studies has 

resulted in a shift in application of thinning treatments on 

Federal lands. Observations to date indicate that, in most 

cases, thinning to the prescribed initial densities will not cause 

high levels of stand damage due to storms or other events. This 

has already resulted in a shift toward lower densities in many 

Federal thinning operations. 

Aquatic Habitats and Vertebrate Diversity - 

Deanna H. Olson

Introduction

There is a critical need for greater understanding of 

aquatic-dependent faunal communities in Pacific Northwest 

forest ecosystems. First, many fishes and amphibians are 

strongly associated with habitat conditions occurring in older 

forests (for example, Thomas et al., 1993; FEMAT, 1993; 

Amphibians: Blaustein et al., 1995; papers in Ruggiero et al., 

1991 and Szaro et al., 1988; Fish: see Nehlsen et al., 1991; 

papers in Meehan, 1991), which have diminished substantially 

over the last century. 

Second, although their general habitat requirements 

are known (for example, stream habitat conditions, forest 

age class and stand moisture associations), there is little 

understanding with regard to much of their ecology, such 

as their associations with watershed-level characteristics, 

their responses to the variety of microhabitats occurring in 

forests and streams across a landscape, and their community 

organization. For example, although the general ties to water 

for many amphibians are known, there is little understanding 

of the effect of specific terrestrial moisture gradients or aquatic 

conditions on different amphibian species and life-history 

stages. 

Third, expanded knowledge of forest amphibians, in 

particular, is needed because both aquatic and terrestrial forest 

amphibians potentially can represent significant ecological 

components of forests with regard to trophic networks and 

biomass: they can occupy a central position in food webs (for 

example, Pough et al., 1987), can be a dominant predator in 

some systems (for example, headwaters: Rundio and Olson, 

2001), and may comprise the majority of the biomass of 

vertebrate fauna in both terrestrial and aquatic habitats within 

forests (for example, Burton and Likens, 1975; Pough et al., 

1987; Bury and Corn, 1991). 

Component Studies  23
Lastly, the status of many fish and amphibian populations 

and species occurring in Pacific Northwest forests is of 

concern (for example, Nehlsen et al., 1991; Marshall et al., 

1992; Nickelson et al., 1992; and Blaustein et al., 1995). In 

a quantitative vulnerability analysis of non-fish vertebrates 

associated with older forests, several forest amphibians 

were found to be among those with the highest risk of 

extinction, higher than more publicized species such as the 

northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet (Lehmkuhl 

and Ruggiero, 1991). A recent global amphibian assessment 

reported 57 percent of Pacific Northwest amphibians occurring 

in western forests were of concern (IUCN Red List category: 

Endangered, 1 sp.; Vulnerable, 4 sp.; Near Threatened, 11 sp.; 

IUCN et al., 2004 and Stuart et al., 2004). Risk of extinction 

to fish also is pervasive; over 300 stocks of anadromous fishes 

are identified to be at risk within the range of the northern 

spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest (FEMAT, 1993), and 

several populations are candidates for Federal listing as 

Threatened and Endangered. Successful management of 

these species requires increased knowledge of their specific 

requirements, from microhabitat to landscape spatial scales, 

and with regard to levels of biological organization from the 

individual to the community.

Although the detrimental effects of clearcutting to various 

fauna are recognized and many species have clear associations 

with forest age and moisture regimes (for example, papers 

in Ruggiero et al., 1991; early papers in de Maynadier and 

Hunter, 1995; Ash, 1997; Rafael et al., 2002), the impacts 

of alternative forest practices on aquatic fauna are not 

well-studied. In retrospective studies, Bisson et al. (2002), 

Raphael et al. (2002), and Stoddard and Hayes (2005) found 

that certain forest management activities, including past 

clearcutting without stream buffers, were associated with 

reduced stream-associated amphibian occupancy patterns. 

Pough et al. (1987) suggested that small-scale modification 

of forests may have little detrimental effect on terrestrial 

amphibians if microhabitats near the soil-litter interface are 

retained. Likewise, other studies (for example, Bury and 

Corn, 1988) suggested that management retaining existing 

microhabitats and microclimate conditions on the forest 

floor can benefit amphibians. Conversely, forest disturbances 

altering interior microclimate conditions may have cascading 

effects on amphibian life-history functions such as foraging 

and reproduction (Welsh and Droege, 2001). Forest thinning 

practices can have a reduced effect on hydrologic processes in 

comparison to clearcutting and may likewise have a reduced 

impact on aquatic vertebrate assemblages, especially if 

additional mitigation measures to preserve microhabitats and 

microclimates such as retention of downed wood or streamside 

trees are also imposed. Thinning prescriptions have been 

recommended to accelerate late-successional characteristics 

of managed forest stands, yet the predicted positive response 

of various “old-growth associates” including aquatic-riparian 

dependent vertebrates to such density management remains 

to be studied. Stream buffers have been established to protect 

stream function and habitats and as mitigation for amphibians 

and fish (for example, Bury, 1988; Welsh, 1990; FEMAT, 

1993; USDA and USDI, 1994). The role of buffer zones in 

the maintenance of forest characteristics and its potential 

tempering influence on riparian microclimate have been 

recognized (see discussion in FEMAT, Bury, 1988; 1993) 

and could benefit riparian and aquatic-riparian dependent 

organisms in any part of the drainage. However, the influences 

of buffer widths on aquatic fauna are unstudied.

In forested ecosystems, headwater areas and associated 

fauna are of particular concern to both land managers 

and scientists. Historically, these areas have had minimal 

protection from management activities such as timber harvest, 

yet they may be pivotal for maintenance of the ecological 

function and integrity of a watershed (for example, Beschta 

et al., 1987; Bisson et al., 1987; Naiman et al., 1992) and for 

the life-history of several aquatic-dependent vertebrates (for 

example, amphibians: Blaustein et al., 1995; Sheridan and 

Olson, 2003). However, basic knowledge is lacking of the 

ecology of most of these species, their reliance on headwater 

areas, and, in particular, their use of streams and streamside 

refuges within headwaters. Their responses to streamside 

buffer zones with upslope thinning are unknown; however, 

buffers are assumed to offer protection to a variety of taxa (for 

example, Olson et al., 2002).

Objectives

(1) Characterize stream habitats and aquatic-dependent 

vertebrate diversity patterns in headwater stream 

networks.

(2) Examine effects on headwater aquatic vertebrate 

assemblages and their habitats of different riparian 

buffer widths within young forests subject to upslope 

timber thinning treatments.

(3) Examine findings of Objectives 1 and 2, above, in 

light of Chan and Anderson’s study of streamside-toupslope vegetation, microhabitat, and microclimate 

regimes (this volume).

(4) Develop inventory and monitoring methods for 

headwater habitats and assemblages.

Methods

Study Sites

One upslope thinning treatment was used for the Riparian 

Buffer Study Component addressing aquatic habitats and 

vertebrates: the moderate density treatment (80 TPA). This 

treatment was chosen because in comparison to the variable 

upslope treatment it reflected a more homogeneously applied 

upslope condition, and in comparison to the high retention 

treatment, it was a more severe harvest. Both young (30-50 

years) and older (70-80 years) stands were included in the 

24  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
study. To be selected as a site, headwater (1st- and 2ndorder) stream reaches needed to occur in this treatment, and 

comparable headwater stream reaches needed to occur in 

the untreated control area. Headwater characterization was a 

study objective; stream reaches selected for study were not 

fully assessed by habitat type beforehand. In addition, reaches 

needed to have a length of at least 2.5 times the height of a 

site-potential tree to be eligible for this study. Some sites had 

>1 replicate buffer treatment due to the occurrence of multiple 

stream reaches for inclusion in the study (table 5). An example 

of the layout of one study site, Green Peak (fig. 2), shows that 

stream buffer replication at a site was driven by the geometry 

of stream reaches occurring within the site boundaries. At this 

site, three stream reaches occurred in the moderate upslope 

thinning area. Three stream buffer widths were applied to 

these reaches. Comparable headwater stream reaches occurred 

in the untreated control area. 

This study component was implemented on 12 study 

sites. Most study sites were part of the BLM Density 

Management Study, however, three sites on USDA Forest 

Service lands also were implemented (table 5). The upslope 

pre-treatment forest conditions and post-treatment thinning 

density were similar on Forest Service lands, however, the 

leave islands and small patch cuts were not installed.

Sampling Design

Habitat conditions and the aquatic-riparian vertebrate 

fauna were examined in and along all stream reaches (table 5). 

At two sites, Green Peak and Keel Mountain, the basic study 

of instream-riparian fauna was augmented by conducting 

surveys for amphibians and mollusks latitudinally to streams 

into the upslope forest. 

Stream habitat was inventoried along the entire reach, 

starting at the downstream end. In wetted stream channels 

that were walkable, an adapted Hankin and Reeves (1988) 

habitat survey was conducted. Habitat units were typed as 

pool, riffle, or dry. Units having mixed types were identified 

as the dominant type and percent of the subdominant type was 

recorded. During habitat typing, units that were unsampleable 

for vertebrates (that is, inaccessible) were identified. 

Numerous habitat data elements were collected during stream 

surveys (table 6).

Response Variables and Measurements

Instream habitat parameters included the stream size 

metrics, microhabitat types, and substrate and downed wood 

characteristics (table 6). Field data were collected on a per unit 

basis, while subsequent reach-scale parameters were derived. 

Per unit visual estimates were made of several habitat 

elements. These included stream gradient, average depth, 

dominant bank overstory tree species, dominant bank 

shrub species and dominant bank herb species. Substrate 

composition was visually estimated per unit as percentages of 

six categories (table 6). Measured habitat elements included 

unit length, width, and maximum depth.

Downed wood was characterized per unit. Wood pieces 

were counted, measured (length and diameter), characterized 

by form such as root wad or log, decay class determined, and 

their location was estimated by zone. Zones were determined 

by proximity in or over the unit (table 6).

Several reach-scale variables were determined subsequent 

to habitat unit typing of the reach. These were used in reachlevel analyses of habitat and species-habitat associations. 

“Hydrotype” characterized the extent of water flow in the 

reach during the two sampling seasons, spring and summer. 

Seven hydrotypes were classified varying from perennial flow 

(water present in entire channel in both spring and summer), 

to discontinuous in one or both seasons (flow going subsurface 

in part of reach), to dry channels with no surface flow. Poolriffle ratios, total channel dimensions (for example, length 

and area), percent dry channel, and number and length of 

flow interruptions (flow going subsurface) were determined, 

per reach. Reach-scale summaries of other elements such as 

substrate and downed wood also were calculated.

Component Studies  25

Stand age 

(yrs) Site

Stream Reaches (N)

Streamside 

Retention

Variable 

Width

One Tree 

Height

Two Tree 

Heights Control

30–50

Bottom Line 2 2

Delph Creek 1 1 1

Green Peak 1 1 1 2

Keel Mountain 2 1 1 1 3

OM Hubbard 1 2 0 2

North Soup 1 1 1 2

Ten High 2 3 1 2

Cougar (USFS) 1 1 1 1 2

Grant (USFS) 2 1 3

Schooner (USFS) 1 4 1

70–80 Callahan Creek 3 2 1 1 1*

Perkins Creek 2 2 2/2*

Table 5. Stream reaches per riparian buffer treatment type.

* Indicates never-thinned reaches of older stands.
In-Channel Vertebrate Sampling

Within each stream reach, 10 stream sites were selected 

for sampling of vertebrates using a random systematic 

approach. Sampleable pool and riffle units were surveyed in 

proportion to their availability as determined by habitat typing. 

Units within approximately 15 m of reach edges were not 

sampled to avoid boundaries (also termed unsampleable units). 

The first unit to be sampled was randomly determined in the 

downstream portion of the reach. Systematic sampling of 

every nth sampleable unit thereafter was conducted upstream, 

where n = the number of sampleable pools or riffles in the 

reach divided by 10. This spread the sampled units along the 

entire reach section.

Two sampling methods were used for instream 

vertebrates, electroshocking and hand searches. Although 

electroshocking is a standard research methodology, the 

potential for low levels of lethal or sub-lethal effects on 

amphibians and fishes is unknown and is a subject of ongoing 

research. Electroshocking was used to effectively sample the 

fishes. Electroshocking likely underestimates the numbers of 

amphibians potentially occurring within stream substrates, 

however, the relative abundances of amphibians among 

reaches could be gauged if standard methods and equal effort 

were applied. If fishes were not apparent within a reach 

then electroshocking was not used. Entire pool units were 

shocked, whereas representative 2-m sections of riffle units 

were shocked. When electroshocking, the upper and lower 

ends of habitat units were blocked to allow for capture and 

measurement of fish and amphibians. Two or more passes of 

the electroshocker through a unit were conducted to achieve 

a 75-percent reduction in all species or to achieve a pass with 

no fish or amphibians. If the fifth pass did not achieve this, the 

survey crew moved to the next sample site. 

During hand searches, the area to be surveyed was 

approached from the downstream end and a dipnet, aquarium 

net, or seine was placed downstream of the area searched 

to catch drifting animals. This net was flush with or within 

the substrate to prevent the escape of drifting animals. The 

surveyor proceeded upstream, first visually surveying the 

unit (for example, looking for salamander/tadpole tails), then 

removing potential cover for amphibians. An aquarium dipnet 

was placed immediately downstream of an object intended 

for removal. Surveyors removed larger unembedded objects 

(wood, rocks) from the stream channel first, then removed 

smaller objects; they looked for animals on the undersides of 

objects and in the water, and used both a hand and dipnet to 

catch animals. Lastly, they removed loosely embedded objects 

and raked the substrate. If the unit clouded with silt, they 

visually searched while waiting for visibility to return. They 

scooped fine gravels with a dipnet to look for smaller animals. 

They replaced all substrate and cover when unit sampling was 

completed.

Table 6. Habitat variables collected along streams.

26  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

Habitat Variable Description

Estimated gradient Estimated trend in gradient by categories

Measured length Measured length of the unit

Measured width Measured width of the unit at the bottom

Average depth Estimated average depth of the unit

Maximum depth Measured maximum depth of the unit

Overstory vegetation Estimated dominant species of vegetation in 

the overstory layer

Shrub vegetation Estimated dominant species of vegetation in 

the shrub layer

Herb vegetation Estimated dominant species of vegetation in 

the herb layer

Other Other features that influence the stream 

(tribs, seeps, slides, springs, slumps, etc.)

Substrate

% substrate size 0 Percent of substrate in the unit that is <3 mm 

diameter (sand, silt, clay, organic matter)

% substrate size 5 Percent of substrate in the unit that is 

between 3–10 mm diameter (small gravel)

% substrate size 6 Percent of substrate in the unit that is 

between 10–30 mm diameter (large gravel)

%substrate size 7 Percent of substrate in the unit that is 

between 30–100 mm diameter (cobble)

% substrate size 8 Percent of substrate in the unit that is 

between 100–300 mm diameter (boulder)

% substrate size 9 Percent of substrate in the unit that is larger 

than 300 mm diameter (bedrock)

By category the estimated dominant and subdominant substrate for 

the banks adjacent to the unit (within 2 m)

Wood

No. pieces Number of pieces represented by this line of 

data

Form Description of wood characteristics (log, root 

wad, etc.)

Estimated length Estimated length of a piece of wood

Estimated diameter Estimated diameter of a piece of wood (at 

approx. 1/3 the distance from the largest 

end)

Verified length Measured length of a piece of wood

Verified diameter Measured diameter of a piece of wood

Percent in Zone 1 Percentage of a piece of wood that is located 

within the wetted channel

Percent in Zone 2 Percentage of a piece of wood located within 

the active channel excluding the wetted 

channel

Percent in Zone 3 Percentage of a piece of wood that is located 

vertically above the active channel

Percent in Zone 4 Percentage of wood outside of the wetted, 

active or plane above the active channel

Decay class Decay class of a piece of wood
Handling of Animals

Instream and bank animal captures were reported per 

unit sampled. Upon capture, species, body length, distance 

to stream (if on bank or upslope), and the cover object and 

substrate at capture sites were recorded. Care was taken to 

minimize stress to animals, including possible desiccation and 

heat stress of amphibians during handling. 

Sampling Schedule

Pre-treatment (P0) data were collected during one wet 

season and one dry season to assess the range of seasonal 

differences in animal numbers, aquatic habitat use, and habitat 

availability. When feasible, due to survey crew logistics and 

annual workload, a second year of pre-treatment surveys were 

conducted. Spring and summer post-treatment surveys were 

conducted for year one (P1), two (P2), and five (P5) after the 

completion of timber harvest. An attempt was made to enter 

the site for post-treatment surveys in the spring as soon as 

the moderate thinning was complete, regardless of ongoing 

harvest activities in other upslope treatment units. In some 

cases, the moderate thinning unit was harvested first, and early 

entry of our field crews for spring surveys was permitted. 

Thus, the P1 calendar date used for this study may vary from 

the date of final harvest for the entire site. Implementation was 

staggered over several years among the 12 study sites (tables 

7a and 7b), with pre-treatment surveys (P0) conducted in 

1994–99 and P1-P5 surveys conducted in 1998–2006.

Data Management

Field data were recorded on paper forms and checked in 

the field to ensure correctness of header, page, and protocol 

information. Original forms were bound and entered into 

spreadsheets at the office. All data entry was subjected to 100 

percent visual inspection for errors. An audit trail is kept with 

the bound hard copy.

Electronic data management procedures included 

Excel file data entry, editing, quality assurance and quality 

control procedures, compilation of files into directories and 

Access database directory archiving. Data processing and 

quality control consisted of queries and graphs for range 

checks and proper coding in addition to automated checks 

using customized programs for data file format consistency, 

completeness, and correct data types for each variable. After 

individual spreadsheets were processed, they were merged 

using a customized program into annual files for each site 

and/or data format before uploading into a database. Multiple 

copies of the study database are kept to provide data security. 

These copies are kept both on and off-site and include CDs, a 

network server, and work station hard drives.

Component Studies  27

Streambank Time-Constrained Searches

Streambanks adjacent to the instream vertebrate surveys 

were searched on each side of the stream for 5 minutes within 

approximately 2 m of the water. Searches concentrated on 

suitable amphibian habitats, such as potential cover objects 

(rocks, vegetation, leaf litter, downed wood and in talus 

substrate) and in wet areas. Cover objects were peeled away 

in layers, while the surveyor looked underneath and within 

interstitial spaces. Woody material, litter, and substrate were 

further searched subsurface by hand or by carefully using a 

potato rake. Vegetation, cover, and substrate were replaced 

and care was taken to reduce impact on habitat. Handling, 

identification, and measuring of animals were not included in 

the survey time period. 

Upslope Time-Constrained Searches

Limited funding and low upslope capture rates initially 

restricted this portion of the study. However, as time permitted 

within the constraints of the study or collaborative field 

crews could be arranged, this aspect was pursued to address 

amphibian and mollusk use of upslope areas and treatment 

effects. 

Terrestrial amphibians and mollusks were censused 

in the spring along transects that began at the stream edge 

and extended uphill, perpendicular to the stream through 

the riparian buffer and into the upslope forest. These transriparian buffer transects were located nonrandomly near 

the center of the riparian buffer treatments to avoid edge 

effects due to neighboring treatments in areas of relatively 

uniform topography from stream to ridge and away from 

patch openings and leave islands. Transects were co-located 

with those used by the Microclimates and Microhabitats 

Component (this volume) to promote integration of studies. 

Each transect consisted of four 2-m-wide parallel lines arrayed 

within 15 m either side of transect center (that is, Chan and 

Anderson transect line). Line locations were offset by 1–2 m 

among sampling years to avoid sampling previously disturbed 

areas. Transect length varied according to constraints such 

as the distance from stream to ridge and road locations, but 

extended about 100 m. 

Hand-sampling methods were used. Cover objects 

(including branches, logs, bark, rocks, moss, and litter) were 

peeled away in layers, while the surveyor looked underneath 

and within interstitial spaces. Woody material, litter, and 

substrate were further searched subsurface by hand or by 

carefully using a potato rake. Vegetation, cover, and substrate 

were replaced and care was taken to reduce impact on habitat. 

A single case study of the efficacy of artificial cover boards for 

amphibian sampling was conducted at Green Peak (table 7b).
Two other documents provide additional study detail, 

such as site maps and driving directions, description of stream 

reach monument procedures (including GIS coordinates), 

deviations from study design or survey protocol, and metadata 

documentation (http://ocid.nacse.org/nbii/density/).

Analytical Approach

From pre-treatment and post-treatment surveys, channel 

habitats, species, and assemblages will be described and 

compared relative to numerous site conditions, including 

stream/vegetative/geomorphic strata at the stream reach level. 

Assessment of variability within and among reaches will 

28  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

Table 7a. Pre-treatment implementation schedule for the aquatic habitat and

vertebrate component of the Riparian Buffer Study.

Key: s = stream surveys, u = upslope transects, m = mollusk surveys, b = cover boards

Stand Age 

(yrs)

Site Pre-treatment Surveys

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

30-50

OM Hubbard s

Keel Mountain s s,u

North Soup s s

Grant s

Ten High s

Green Peak s s,u

Delph Creek s

Schooner * s s

Cougar s

Bottom Line s,u

70-80

Callahan Creek s

Perkins Creek s

Table 7b. Post-treatment implementation schedule for the aquatic habitat and vertebrate component of 

the Riparian Buffer Study.

Key: s = stream surveys, u = upslope transects, m = mollusk surveys, b = cover boards

Stand Age 

(yrs)

Site Post-treatment Surveys

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

30-50

OM Hubbard s s s

Keel Mountain s,u s,u,m s,u,m

Soup Creek s s s

Grant s s s

Ten High s s s

Green Peak s,u,m,b s,u,m,b s,u,m,b

Delph Creek s s s

Schooner * s s s s s

Cougar s s s

Bottom Line s s s

70-80

Callahan Creek s s s

Perkins Creek s s s

* Buffer treatments were implemented across two years, requiring 2 years to complete year 1, 2, and 5 post-treatment surveys. 

For example, year 1 post treatment surveys were conducted in 2001 and 2002, year 2 in 2002 and 2003, and year 5 surveys will 

be completed in years 2005 and 2006.
Component Studies  29

be one point of emphasis. Models of habitats, species, and 

assemblages relative to strata will be examined. Qualitative 

and quantitative patterns will be assessed. Where appropriate, 

a variety of univariate and multivariate statistics will be used. 

Multivariate analyses to characterize headwater assemblages 

and species-habitat associations (Objective 1) include 

canonical correlation and poisson regression. More stream 

reaches were included in analyses of pre-treatment data to 

characterize headwaters, due to inclusion of zero-order basin 

dry channel segments above water flow. These segments may 

or may not have had evidence of scour or deposition, and 

often were not included within buffer zones applied to wetted 

reaches.

Treatment effects (Objective 2) on spring season species 

abundances and habitat parameters will be examined using 

analysis of variance, trend pattern analyses and pairwise 

comparisons. Stream reaches used in analyses will have 

perennial or intermittent flow, riparian buffers implemented 

on both sides of the stream, and upslope thinning on both 

sides. Treatment effects will be analyzed with P0 and P1

data, P0 and P2 data, P0 and most comparable year of posttreatment year one and two data among sites, and P0

 and P5 

data. The most comparable year analysis will merge year 

one and two data due to offset implementation schedule 

timing. For example, at some sites P1 data were collected 

several days post harvest, while other sites P1 data were 

collected 12 months after harvest. In these cases, the most 

comparable years of surveys for inclusion in analyses 

across all sites may be P2 (12 months + a few days) from 

the first site and P1 (12 months) from the second site. Many 

analyses will be conducted both separately and together 

for species abundances collected with hand searching and 

electroshocking techniques.

In analyses of treatment effects, sample sizes were 

anticipated to be an issue in several regards. First, the small 

number of two-tree-height buffers were expected to constrain 

our ability to detect potential patterns related to treatment 

effects from these wider buffers. Second, low or patchy 

species occurrences were anticipated to be problematic 

and were expected to reduce the number of taxa we could 

analyze.

Key findings from each Riparian Buffer Study 

Component will be compiled within a synthesis paper 

on headwater streams (Objective 3). A more quantitative 

integration of findings is planned, contingent on funding, 

using upslope data at Green Peak and Keel Mountain study 

sites. The integration will include instream-riparian specieshabitat analyses with derivation of reach-level microsite and 

microclimate characterizations.

Species occupancy and abundance patterns, and 

variability therein, will be examined in order to explore 

development of streamlined headwater survey methodology. 

Plots of species abundance distributions and presence/

absence will be grouped by different spatial scale measures 

(basin, stream segment within basin, site within stream 

segment) and plots will be examined which show changes in 

the average density by basin and season. Further description 

of variability patterns will be made using estimates of 

variance components for the relative abundance in total and by 

species. Maximum likelihood procedures with SAS, PROC, 

and VARCOMP statistical programs will be used to obtain 

estimates of these variance components. 

Application of Results

Scope of Inference

Study sites included in this project were selected based 

on nonrandom criteria including homogeneous forest structure 

of particular ages and composition and the practicality of 

implementation scheduling. They are a collection of case 

studies, extending from Mount Hood to Coos Bay, Oregon. 

The scope of inference is limited to these selected sites. 

However, these sites were, in part, chosen to be representative 

of Federal forests across low elevations in western Oregon and 

results may be highly relevant to neighboring lands. In several 

respects, there are analogous forested systems extending north 

into British Columbia and south to northwest California.

Streams in this study were located in forested headwaters 

and range from zero to second order. In some cases, it was 

possible to randomly apply riparian buffer treatments to stream 

reaches per site. However, in other cases, treatments were 

restricted by the number and proximity of reaches available, 

such that a random application of buffers was not possible. 

Thus, at the reach level, overall results will apply only to the 

reaches examined. Again, however, these streams are expected 

to represent headwater networks in nearby forest landscapes, 

and analogous headwater systems may be found from British 

Columbia to northern California. Thus, the findings of this 

study are relevant to this larger landscape. Results of this study 

should not be considered for application to larger streams or to 

headwaters with significantly different geologies (for example, 

gradient, topography, and parent geology) in which different 

processes and species-assemblages may occur.

More than 15 species of amphibians and fishes have been 

encountered in this study. Species detected in small numbers 

likely have limited analytical value; treatment effects may 

not be possible to detect. For more commonly found taxa, 

the scope of inference of species-specific results is only to 

the reach and sites studied. However, results generated in this 

study are viable hypotheses for patterns occurring elsewhere 

in the ranges of these species. Many of these species occur in 

similar forests from British Columbia to northern California, 

west of the Cascade Range. This is the extent to which our 

findings may have relevance.
Expected Outcomes

We lack an understanding of the effects of alternative 

riparian management practices on aquatic habitat and species. 

Interim Riparian Reserves, as established in the Northwest 

Forest Plan, provide buffer zones to conservatively protect 

a variety of ecological values from the impacts of timber 

harvest. Data addressing the risks and benefits of alternative 

riparian buffer boundaries and of forest management within 

delineated Riparian Reserves are needed to provide rationales 

for management decisions. This study is specifically designed 

to advance our knowledge of the effects on aquatic resources 

of thinning with riparian buffer zones of various widths. We 

expect to provide data to address the level of risk associated 

with alternative riparian buffers along headwater streams when 

forest thinning is proposed. 

This study will integrate abiotic and biotic headwater 

features sampled at multiple western Oregon study sites 

from Mt. Hood to Coos Bay to classify headwater stream 

networks. This classification, which incorporates variability 

among ecologically distinct forested provinces (that is, the 

central Oregon Coast Range and the western Oregon Cascade 

Range), will aid resource assessments prior to site-level field 

verification and guide resource managers with regard to the 

physical and biological values of these portions of watersheds. 

For example, definitive ecological values of headwaters 

may be tied to elements named in the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy Objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. A 

characterization scheme for headwater streams and identifiable 

associations of vertebrate fauna with stream characterizations 

will help evaluate their potential biological resources allowing 

for more appropriate land management. Early results of 

our study have been used to this end. Our identification of 

discontinuous streams as habitat for a sensitive amphibian 

species is being incorporated into resource specialist surveys 

as habitat to identify during field reconnaissance prior to the 

design of management proposals.

Development of standardized approaches for field 

inventory and monitoring of headwater stream systems 

and their vertebrate fauna is a high priority in the Pacific 

Northwest. A large proportion of managed watersheds are 

in headwater Riparian Reserves. These approaches should 

incorporate streamlined reconnaissance-level methodologies 

to field-validate physical and biological resources. Such 

methodologies can be used to inventory habitats and species 

to aid management decisions, and also can be used for 

implementation, effectiveness, and validation monitoring. 

This expected outcome has been partially realized. Our 

bank survey methodologies were integrated into the Northwest 

Forest Plan Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring 

Protocol.

In summary, relative to the Record of Decision (ROD) 

(USDA and USDI, 1994) for the Northwest Forest Plan, 

results of this project are expected to: 

• Aid decisions for delineation of, and management 

within, Riparian Reserves (ROD B12-17)

• Develop better understanding of aquatic-dependent 

resources named in elements of Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy Objectives (ROD B-11) 

• Understand impacts of management within Riparian 

Reserves on elements of Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy Objectives (ROD B9-12)

• Develop methodologies, guidelines, and project sites 

for monitoring of aquatic-dependent resources (ROD 

E5-10, ROD B32-34)

An incidental outcome of this project has been the 

development of partnerships among clients and collaborators. 

Improved relationships among researchers in agencies and 

industry, and between the forest research and management 

communities, provide opportunities for future collaborations. 

This project involves a large amount of coordination within 

and among agencies and forest managers. Primary clients and 

collaborators number over forty, and consultations through 

outreach activities have reached hundreds of natural resource 

personnel. International consultations have been requested 

and are resulting in new global liaisons relative to forest 

management.

Related Studies

Two additional studies have been conducted to address 

Objective 1, characterization of headwater habitats and 

vertebrates. They are directly related to this study component, 

but were implemented in neighboring drainages to fill 

information gaps that we were unable to address at DMS 

riparian buffer study sites. 

First, Sheridan and Olson (2003) and Sheridan and 

Spies (2005) characterized habitats, amphibians and plants 

in unmanaged headwater basins near the North Soup study 

site. This work fills the knowledge gap of what headwater 

conditions may be like in unmanaged forests, although the 

scope of inference is restricted to forests near Coos Bay, 

Oregon. We initially sought unmanaged “control” sites near all 

riparian buffer study sites but were unable to adequately match 

elevation, stand size or condition, or stream character near 

most locations.

Second, characterization of headwater vertebrates 

includes understanding their ecological role in the forest 

system. This includes interspecific interactions, which may 

have a profound influence on species’ distribution patterns. 

Using an experimental approach, Rundio and Olson (2001) 

and Rundio and Olson (2003) examined interactions among 

three dominant species occurring in headwater streams at the 

riparian buffer sites. Strong interactions were detected. Due to 

the manipulative nature of this work, it was not conducted at 

DMS riparian study sites, but in neighboring basins.

30 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Microclimates and Microhabitats of Riparian 

and Adjacent Upland Areas - Samuel Chan and 

Paul Anderson (PNW)

Introduction

The Riparian Microclimate and Microsite Component 

is intended to characterize the interactive effects of riparian 

buffer delineation and associated upland thinning treatments. 

These treatments influence microclimate, light conditions, 

understory vegetation and other site characteristics important 

to ecosystem function, habitat quality, and forest productivity. 

A primary management objective for young even-aged 

Douglas-fir forests on Federal lands being managed under the 

Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) (USDA and USDI, 1994) is the 

restoration and maintenance of watershed ecological functions. 

Two strategies to meet this objective are the establishment of 

Riparian Reserves and the implementation and monitoring 

of aquatic and riparian restoration projects. Continued 

widespread application of even-aged management practices 

will likely maintain these forests in the stem exclusion stage of 

development (Oliver and Larson, 1996) for several decades to 

come. Setting aside these dense stands as unmanaged reserves 

to achieve biodiversity goals will potentially delay, perhaps a 

century or longer (Andrews et al., 2005), development of latesuccessional stand structures while also forgoing the potential 

production of wood and other forest products compatible with 

attainment of ecological objectives.

Various forms of thinning and density management are 

being widely employed, however, information is lacking on 

the effects of density management practices in riparian areas, 

especially along intermittent streams and headwalls that 

are prevalent features of the mountain landscape in western 

Oregon and Washington. Riparian areas are integrally linked 

with upland forests (Reeves et al., 1995) through vegetation 

that regulates the exchange of energy, nutrients and matter 

(Swanson et. al., 1982; Gregory, 1997). The degree to which 

vegetation management, within and adjacent to riparian zones, 

influences these linkage processes is largely unknown. The 

efficacy of Riparian Reserves for sustaining riparian functions 

and their compatibility with producing wood and other 

commodity values from riparian zones has not been rigorously 

tested (Olson et al., 2002). 

Thinning is a silvicultural practice designed to increase 

the amount of site resources available to the residual 

vegetation in a forest stand. Perhaps the most obvious effect 

of thinning is the increase in light available to overstory 

and understory vegetation. In the relatively moist climate of 

western Oregon, it is common to think of thinning in relation 

to alterations of the light regime. However, thinning also can 

influence many other microclimate parameters by altering the 

energy balance, radiation regime, interception of precipitation, 

air flow and soil water regime (Landsberg, 1986; Chen et al., 

1999). Depending on the intensity and configuration, thinning 

is one approach to moving a stand from the stem exclusion 

phase, either temporarily or permanently, by creating 

opportunities for understory regeneration, improved growth 

and vigor of advanced regeneration, delaying senescence of 

lower canopy limbs and increasing the diameter growth of 

lower branches (Bailey and Tappeiner, 1998).

Variation in stand structure resulting from competition, 

disturbances, and management practices leads to variation 

in microclimate and microhabitat (Oliver and Larson, 1996). 

Gaps in the canopies of late-successional Douglas-fir/western 

hemlock forests facilitate development of multi-layered 

and patchy stand characteristics (Spies and Franklin, 1991; 

Gray and Spies, 1992; Gray, 1995). In contrast, canopy gaps 

created in young Douglas-fir stands are often quickly occupied 

by crown expansion of adjacent trees, providing limited 

opportunity for understory regeneration and development of 

a multi-layered canopy. Given the greater plant diversity and 

interactions with complex environments and edges in riparian 

areas, competition between plants may be even more intense 

than in uplands (Hayes et al., 1996; Newton et al., 1996). 

Thus, openings in riparian areas are likely to be closed more 

rapidly by existing plants but not necessarily by trees (Chan, 

1994; Minore and Weatherly, 1994; Spies et al., 1994; Hibbs 

and Giordano, 1996; Hayes et al., 1997).

The conceptual basis defining the potential role of 

Riparian Reserves in moderating microclimate developed in 

FEMAT (USDA and USDI, 1993) was the subject of studies 

by Chen, Franklin, and Spies (Chen et al., 1993a, 1993b, 

1995). Their examination of microclimate conditions along 

gradients from a clearcut into an old-growth Douglas-fir forest 

demonstrated that microclimate, particularly solar radiation 

and air temperature near the ground surface, is very sensitive 

to changes in canopy cover and is highly variable in space 

and time (Chen et al. 1999). Their work also demonstrated 

substantial differences among microclimatic parameters in 

spatial and temporal responses to different forest structures. 

The distance from cut edge to forest interior in which 

microclimatic perturbation could be detected varied from tens 

of feet (for example, soil moisture) to hundreds of feet (for 

example, wind velocity) (fig. 6).

Subsequent to FEMAT, two studies have been conducted 

that examine microclimate gradients associated with 

riparian buffers and upslope forest management. Brosofske 

et al. (1997) demonstrated in uncut forests that, for most 

parameters, microclimate approached interior forest conditions 

within 30-60 m (100-200 ft) upslope from stream center for 

steeply constrained, 2-4 m (7-13 ft) wide stream channels 

in the west-side Cascades of Washington. Exceptions to this 

generalization included solar radiation and wind speed, which 

attained interior forest conditions at distances in excess of 

100 m (325 ft) from stream center. They also observed little 

influence of buffer width when the uplsope was clearcut on 

air temperature or wind speed at stream center. Solar radiation 

was negatively correlated with, and relative humidity was 

Component Studies  31
positively correlated with, width of buffer. Danehy and Kirpes 

(2000) demonstrated similar spatial relationships for relative 

humidity for riparian-upland transects in east-side Cascade 

forests that had been partially harvested (selective harvest) 

with no uncut buffer. Relative humidity gradients were strong 

from stream center to 5 m (15 ft) upslope, with little change in 

relative humidity with increasing distance beyond 10 m (35 ft) 

from stream center. There also was greater diurnal and spatial 

variation in relative humidity with partial overstory removal.

Objectives

(1) Describe the spatial and temporal variability 

in microsite (stand canopy, vegetation, forest floor and 

topography), microclimate (temperature and humidity), 

and light conditions (canopy transmittance) in riparian and 

adjacent upland forests.

Table 8. Geographic locations and BLM administrative jurisdictions for sites in the Riparian Microclimate and Microsite 

Component.

[Complete site history information available in appendix E]

Site BLM District Resource Area T-R-S Latitude Longitude

Green Peak Salem Marys Peak 14S-6W-7 44° 22’00” 123° 27’30”

Callahan Creek Salem Marys Peak 8S-7W-31 44o50’05.0” 123o35’26.0”

Keel Mountain Salem Cascades 12S-1E-13 44° 31’41” 122° 37’55”

Delph Creek Salem Cascades 03S-05E-35 45o15’56.0” 122o9’33.0”

Bottomline Eugene South Valley 21S-5W-1 43° 46’20” 123° 124’11”

O.M. Hubbard Roseburg Swiftwater 26S-8W-24 43° 17’36” 123° 35’05”

North Soup Creek Coos Bay Umpqua 23S-9W-16 43° 33’57” 123° 46’38”

(2) Evaluate microclimate, microsite and light condition 

responses to upland density management treatments and 

riparian buffers of different widths.

(3) Determine potential linkages among commonly 

measured microclimate and microsite attributes with (a) 

density management and different riparian buffer strategies, 

(b) understory vegetation development and tree regeneration, 

and (c) diversity of aquatic dependent vertebrates and the 

presence and development of lichens and bryophytes (as 

measured by other investigators).

(4) Develop methods for monitoring spatial and temporal 

variation in riparian microclimate and microsite responses to 

forest management practices in riparian and adjacent upslope 

forests.

Methods

Study Sites

The Riparian Microclimate and Microsite Studies were 

installed at seven DMS locations (table 8). Six sites have all 

four upland density management treatments installed, while 

Callahan Creek has only the 32 TPH (80 TPA) thinning 

treatment. Callahan Creek also differs from the other DMS 

sites in that the stand age was approximately 80 years at the 

time of study initiation (contrast to 35–40 years for the other 

initial thinning sites). Delph Creek is unique from other DMS 

sites as it includes areas of very low density (8 TPA, 20 TPA). 

A limited number of transects were installed at Delph Creek to 

characterize light conditions within this very low density area. 

However, microsite and understory vegetation data were not 

collected on the Delph Creek transects.

Sampling Design

Effects of the experimental treatments on microsite 

and microclimate are being characterized through repeated 

sampling of the treatment units. Sampling is based on two 

types of transects: (1) riparian-upland transects, which extend 

32  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

Figure 6. Cumulative effectiveness of an old-growth stand in 

mitigating microclimatic changes associated with clearcutting. 

Adapted from FEMAT (1993).
Component Studies  33

perpendicular to the stream, from the stream center, through 

the riparian buffer and into the adjacent upland density 

treatment; and (2) streamside transects, which run parallel to 

the stream 4.6 m (15 ft) from stream center. Riparian-upland 

transects are the principal focus of the study and represent a 

majority of the research effort. Streamside transects provide an 

opportunity for integration with other study components but 

represent a relatively small research effort.

Co-location of sample plots along transects has been 

undertaken by various researchers to facilitate integration 

among component and collaborative studies within the DMS. 

Riparian-Upland Transects

Each riparian-upland transect samples one of twenty 

possible combinations of four buffer widths (two site-potential 

tree height, one site-potential tree height, variable width, and 

streamside retention) with overstory retention of 16 TPH (40 

TPA), 32 TPH (80 TPA), 48 TPH (120 TPA), 0.4-ha (1.0-acre) 

leave island, and 0.4-ha (1.0-acre) patch, or unthinned control 

stands. A maximum of nine riparian-upland transects were 

established at each site based on the specific combinations of 

density management and riparian buffers represented at each 

site (table 9). Priority was given to locating transects in the 

unthinned controls and in the variable and moderate density 

treatments. The intent is to focus the sampling effort on 

treatments hypothesized to demonstrate the largest gradients 

in microclimate. The variable density treatment units contain 

elements of all the residual density conditions included in the 

DMS. The moderate density treatments (32 TPH, 80 TPA) 

are a focus of this study because they allow comparison of 

the full range of buffer width delineations in association with 

a common upslope treatment. Much of the aquatic vertebrate 

research of Olson et al. (1996) also is being conducted in the 

moderate density treatments. Focused sampling of the variable 

and moderate density treatments permits more efficient 

characterization of the environmental gradients associated 

with buffer width and overstory retention.

Riparian-upland transects are initiated at stream center 

and extend perpendicular to the stream through the riparian 

zone and a minimum of 72 m (234 ft) into the adjacent upland 

treatment. The minimum 72 m extension into the upland 

beyond the riparian buffer edge is based on the diameter 

of a 1-acre patch opening, the smallest upland unit being 

monitored. Thus, transect lengths range from 72 m (234 ft) 

(unthinned control treatment) to as long as 225 m (740 ft) (two 

site-potential tree height buffer into a 32 TPH thin) depending 

on the combination of buffer treatment and the potential 

height of dominant trees. Transects on opposite sides of the 

stream may be offset from one another to ensure that transects 

traverse the interior of an upland treatment and, thus, minimize 

edge effects along the transect length. 

Permanent sample points are established along each 

riparian-upland transect and marked with a 1.2 m (4 ft) tall 

fiberglass rod labeled with the transect number, distance from 

the stream center and the associated overstory treatment. 

Spacing among sample points varies with inter-point distances 

being shorter near the stream and longer at greater distances 

from the stream. Relative to stream center, the first terrestrial 

sample plot is located 4.6 m (15 ft) distant. From a 4.6 to 23 m 

(15 to 75 ft) distance from stream center, sample points are 

spaced 9.1 m (30 ft) apart. Beyond 23 m (75 ft) from stream 

center, plots are spaced 18 m (60 ft) apart. The greater nearstream sampling intensity is intended to better capture the 

spatial variation in conditions that exhibit an initially strong 

gradient with increasing distance from stream center.

Streamside Transects

The explicit purpose of monitoring streamside transects 

is to provide riparian microsite and microclimate data that 

are complimentary to faunal abundance, diversity and habitat 

quality data being collected for amphibians and arthropods in 

the studies of Olson et al. (1996) and Moldenke (Furnish et al., 

1997).

Streamside transects are oriented parallel to stream center 

at a distance of 4.6 m and consists of two sample points. The 

streamside transects are initiated at the 4.6 m point of riparian/

upland transects and extend either 4.6 or 9 m. Sample points 

are located at the ends of the streamside transect; the 4.6 m 

point of the riparian/upland transect is shared as a sample 

point with the streamside transect. 

Nested Sample Plots

Nested sample plots are associated with each sample 

point along each transect (fig. 7). The sample point serves as 

plot center and is the location at which microclimate, light 

and canopy closure are measured. Overstory and understory 

vegetation conditions are sampled within a 3-m (9.8 ft) radius 

(0.003 ha, 0.007 acre) plot centered on each sample point. 

Two perpendicular 6-m (19.7 ft) transects centered at each 

sampling point are used to survey downed woody material and 

forest floor conditions.

Response Variables and Measurements

A broad suite of variables is being measured or 

monitored. These include descriptors of physiographic 

conditions, vegetation composition and structure, microclimate 

and light regimen (table 10). With the exception of static 

physiographic features, the variables being measured and 

monitored are individually of potential interest as responses 

to the applied density management treatments, as well 

as covariates explaining the treatment responses of other 

variables. Although this study focuses on interactions among 

physiography, vegetation and microclimate, there is an explicit 

interest in the implications of these interactions for riparian 

and aquatic habitat quality. Ideally, the variables monitored 

in this component study are directly relevant to responses of 

other organisms to the density management and riparian buffer 

treatments.
34  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

Riparian Buffer Type

Density Management Treatment

Buffer Type 

Total 0.4-hectare 

Patch Opening

16 TPH 

(40 TPA)

32 TPH

(80 TPA)

48 TPH 

(120 TPA))

0.4-hectare 

Leave Island

Unthinned 

Control

Unthinned Control

(C)

BL

CC(2)

GP(2)

KM(2)

MH

NS(2)

10

2-Site Potential Tree Heights (B2)

BL BL

CC(2)

KM(2)

6

1-Site Potential Tree Height (B1)

BL

GP

KM

NS

BL

CC(2)

GP(2)

KM

NS(2)

BL

KM

KM1 15

Variable Break

(VB)

BL

GP(2)

GP2

KM

MH(2)

NS(2)

BL(2)

KM

MH

NS

BL

BL3

CC(2)

GP(4)

KM(2)

MH

NS

BL

GP

MH(2)

GP 31

Streamside Retention (SR)

CC(2)

GP(2)

KM(2)

NS(3)4

KM 10

Density Management Treatment 

Total 14 5 34 6 3 10 72

1

B1-L1 thru 80 TPA.

2

VB-P1 thru 80 TPA.

3

VB-80 thru P1.

4

Thin-through 80 TPA.

Table 9. Riparian buffer and density management treatments by site. 

[Density Management Treatment: Parentheses () indicate more than one transect per treatment combination at a given site. BL, Bottomline; CC, Callahan 

Creek; GP, Green Peak; KM, Keel Mountain; NS, North Soup Creek; OM, O.M. Hubbard]
Table 10. Descriptive and response variables measured or monitored as part of the Microclimate and Microsite Component.

Variable Description

Physiography

Aspect Azimuth of transect line

Plot aspect Azimuth of slope at plot along transect

Topographic position Position of plot in context of local relief: Ridge-top, slope, bench, toe, floodplain 

Slope Gradient in elevation between successive plots

Distance from stream Slope distance from stream center to plot – measured along the transect parallel to the ground 

surface

Height above stream Elevation of plot above the stream center within a transect 

Overstory

Density Number of trees per unit area greater than 12 cm (4.7 in.) dbh stratified by conifer and hardwood

Basal area Stand basal area per unit area of trees greater than 12 cm (4.7 in.) dbh stratified by conifer and 

hardwood

Diameter breast height Mean diameter at breast height for subsample of trees greater than 12 cm (4.7 in.) dbh per plot

Height Mean height for subsample of trees greater than 12 cm (4.7 in.) dbh per plot

Live crown ratio Mean depth of live crown as a % of total tree height

Snag density Number per unit area of standing dead trees greater than 12 cm (4.7 in.) dbh

Windthrow density Number per unit area of overturned trees greater than 12 cm (4.7 in.) dbh

Understory

Density of small trees Number of natural (not planted) trees per unit area greater than 1.5 m (4.9 ft) height and less than 

12 cm (4.7 in.) dbh

Woody species cover % plot cover by woody species less than 2 m (6.6 ft) height

Dominant woody species The woody species having the greatest cover per plot

Height of dominant woody species Maximum height of the dominant woody species per plot

Density of natural seedlings Number of natural (not planted) trees per unit area less than 1.5 m (4.9 ft) height

Herbaceous cover % plot cover by herbaceous species

Dominant herb species Herbaceous species having the greatest % cover per plot

Height of dominant herbaceous species Maximum height of dominant herbaceous species per plot

Forest Floor

DWM cover % ground covered by downed woody material stratified by diameter class: diameter class: <5 cm; 

5-30 cm; >30 cm (<2 in.; 2-11.8 in.; >11.8 in.)

DWM depth Depth of downed woody material stratified by diameter class

Litter cover % ground covered by litter

Litter depth Depth of litter

Moss/bryophyte cover % ground covered by moss and/or other bryophytes

Bare ground % ground uncovered (bare mineral soil)

Microclimate and Light

Air temperature Air temperature 1 m (3.3 ft) above ground at plot center

Soil temperature Soil temperature 15 cm (6 in) below ground at plot center

Streambed temperature Temperature 15 cm (6 in) beneath surface of channel substrate at stream center; often saturated by 

stream water

Relative humidity Humidity 1 m (3.3 ft) above ground surface at plot center

Percent canopy light transmittance Diffused visible light 1 m above ground at plot center as a percentage of estimated diffused light 

above the overstory canopy

Component Studies  35
Distances from plot center to the nearest tree, and to that 

tree’s nearest neighbor, also are recorded to facilitate analysis 

of spatial variation in the horizontal distribution of overstory 

trees (Ludwig and Reynolds, 1988).

Canopy Cover and Light Conditions

Vertically oriented hemispherical photographs of the 

forest canopy are taken from 1 m above ground, near the 

center of the sample plot. These provide a permanent record 

(analog and digital) of canopy condition. They also allow an 

estimation of the percent light transmittance of the canopy 

(gap fraction) and the probability and duration of direct 

and indirect solar radiation. Hemispherical photographs are 

made using a tripod mounted 35-mm SLR camera with a 

hemispherical lens having a 180° field of view. Images are 

recorded on high contrast black and white film. To minimize 

potential errors associated with light reflectance from boles, 

branches and foliage, images are recorded during early 

morning or evening when the sun is low to the horizon 

Overstory Stand Structure

Stand-level variables such as density, basal area, relative 

density and mean tree diameter are being measured to 

characterize stand structure dynamics in relation to the buffer 

and density management treatments. Basal area and relative 

density are estimated using a variable-radius-plot sampling 

technique based on a 20-factor angle gauge (either a prism 

or a Spiegel-Relaskope). Stand basal area (BA) is calculated 

from the tally of “in trees” with each tallied tree representing 

4.6 m2 ha-1 (20 ft2 acre-1) basal area. Diameter at breast 

height and species of each tallied tree is recorded and used 

to estimate quadratic mean diameter (Dq). Relative Density 

(RD), an index of site occupancy, is calculated from BA and 

Dq (Curtis, 1982). Stand metrics are stratified between conifer 

and hardwood species classes and also between live and dead 

classes.

In addition to stand metrics describing basal area and 

relative density, tree height and live crown ratio are determined 

on a sub-sample of trees tallied in the variable radius plots. 

36  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

Figure 7. Transect and sample-plot layout for microclimate and microsite sampling.
(low solar angle), or when the sky is uniformly overcast. 

Commercially developed black and white negatives are 

digitized and analyzed using CANOPY (Rich, 1989) software. 

Specific hemispherical photographic procedures are likely 

to change in the future with the adoption of a digital camera 

and newer graphical interface software. Although the tools of 

image capture and analysis will change, fundamentals of the 

procedure, data reduction, and variable estimation will remain 

the same.

Image processing using CANOPY provides estimates 

of gap fraction and leaf area index (LAI). Gap fraction is a 

measure of canopy light transmittance that is defined as the 

amount of light measured beneath the canopy as a fraction of 

the incident light above the canopy. In CANOPY, gap fraction 

is estimated by dividing values for unweighted openness by 

those for a blank negative for each of 160 image segments 

(eight azimuth sectors × 20 zenith classes). LAI is then 

estimated by one-dimensional inversion modeling for each of 

eight azimuth sectors and then averaged for the image estimate 

(Rich, 1989; Martens et al., 1993). 

Early in the study, gap fraction and LAI were measured 

using the LI-2000 Plant Canopy Analyzer (Licor Inc., Lincoln 

NE), in addition to hemispherical photography. Use of paired 

instruments, one sensor/detector set located under the canopy 

at transect sample points, and the other placed simultaneously 

in a nearby clearing permits calculation of gap fraction. Gap 

fraction estimates are then used to estimate LAI by applying 

the same single-dimension inversion modeling technique as 

described above for hemispherical photographs.

Additional direct measurements of photosynthetically 

active radiation (PAR) and total radiation have been made 

using quantum sensors and pyranometers, respectively. Both 

the quantum and pyranometer sensors are connected to data 

loggers equipped with humidity, air and soil temperature 

sensors. These sensor packages are then transported plot to 

plot along each transect to obtain instantaneous measurements 

of light and microclimate conditions. In addition to plot 

measurements, two additional sensor packages collect 

concurrent reference data: one sensor package located at 

stream side and the other in a nearby upland opening (typically 

a clearcut or landing). 

Microclimate

Three microclimate variables are monitored at each plot 

center along each transect. These include air temperature 

and relative humidity 1 m (3.3 ft) above the ground and soil 

temperature 15 cm (6 in.) below ground, or, if the plot is at 

stream center, stream substrate temperature 15 cm below 

the surface of the streambed. Although soil and streambed 

temperatures are measured essentially the same way, the often 

water-saturated conditions make the latter a measurement 

of hyporheic zone temperature and will strongly reflect the 

thermal influence of stream water. It also is noted whether 

the soil temperature was measured in mineral soil or in 

decomposing organic matter.

As described above for the measurement of PAR 

and total radiation, pre-treatment and first post-treatment 

microclimate conditions were recorded with sensors attached 

to a portable data logger. Air, soil, and streambed temperatures 

were measured using thermisters. Relative humidity was 

measured using thin capacitance sensors. As with the 

light measurements, two sensor packages were located to 

provide streamside and open reference conditions while a 

third sensor package was carried from plot to plot along the 

transect to make instantaneous microclimate measurements. 

Synchronization of the timers among the three data loggers 

permits direct comparison of data collected at the plots and 

each reference location.

Simultaneous, continuous microclimate monitoring 

was undertaken beginning in 2000 for the first post-harvest 

measurement period (P1). This was in contrast to instantaneous 

measurements of microclimate made pre-treatment (P0). 

Self-contained data logger and sensor units are deployed 

at each plot along transects. Each 3-channel unit records 

air temperature, relative humidity, and soil or streambed 

temperature at hourly intervals over a pre-programmed period 

of days. The units are shielded from rain and direct sunlight 

with 1-liter (32 oz) ventilated white plastic cups. Typically 

the sensors are deployed at all plots for all transects within 

a site for continuous monitoring over a two-week period. 

Limitations on the number of available sensors result in 

sensors necessarily being rotated among sites in any given 

season of a sampling year.

Microsite

Topographic variables measured include aspect, slope 

position, percent slope, and elevation above the stream. 

Transect and plot aspects were measured by hand-compass. 

Percent slope at each plot was determined by either clinometer 

or Abney level. Plot elevation above the stream was calculated 

from the slope angle and slope distance between subplots.

Understory Vegetation

Cover and composition of understory vegetation is 

measured at each subplot. Understory vegetation is stratified 

into shrub, herbaceous, and moss classes. Percent cover is 

determined by measuring total length of cover for each stratum 

along two permanently marked 6 m (19.7 ft) transects centered 

within each subplot. The two transects are perpendicularly 

oriented with one having been established along a random 

azimuth from plot center. In addition to percent cover, the 

dominant shrub species and the dominant herbaceous species 

within each subplot are noted. The maximum height of both 

the dominant shrub and dominant herbaceous species are 

measured.

Component Studies  37
Forest Floor

Forest floor conditions were characterized by percent 

cover and depth of litter, slash, and coarse wood; and percent 

bare ground. Coarse wood was further stratified into three 

diameter classes: <5 cm, 5 to 30 cm, and >30 cm (<2 in.; 

2-11.8 in.; >11.8 in.) as measured at the point of transect 

intersection. Cover estimation is based on the same 6-m 

transects used to quantify understory vegetation cover. Slash 

and coarse wood depth measurements are made where the 

specified forest floor component is judged to be deepest. Litter 

depth is measured at five points. The decay status of woody 

material >30 cm (11.8 in.) in diameter also is recorded.

Sampling Schedule

Periodicity

Initial harvest schedule and logistical constraints 

associated with instrumentation and measurement protocols 

dictate that the timing of sampling varies over years among 

sites, and over seasons within sites (table 11).

Transects and plots were installed at least one year prior 

to initial harvesting to quantify pre-treatment (P0, baseline) 

conditions. Pre-treatment data are used as a reference to assess 

the effectiveness of thinning treatments in modifying stand and 

site conditions and to characterize the longer term temporal 

dynamics of overstory and understory vegetation dynamics 

and associated changes in microsite and microclimate.

Post-treatment data were collected twice in the first 

five years following harvest (table 11). The first post-harvest 

periodic measurement (P1) occurred within two years of 

harvest to characterize initial post-harvest conditions. The 

second post-harvest periodic measurement (P2) occurred 

3 to 5 years after harvest to characterize initial post-harvest 

dynamics. Subsequent periodic measurements are intended to 

occur at 5-year intervals.

Seasonality

Sampling of microsite and microclimate parameters 

is performed in the summer. Summer vegetation surveys 

facilitate accurate identification and abundance estimation of 

herbaceous vegetation. Density management treatment effects 

on microclimate are expected to be greatest during the summer 

period, which is characterized by large diurnal amplitude in air 

temperature and humidity.

Assessments of canopy cover and canopy light 

transmittance are made in both summer and winter 

corresponding to respective leaf-on and leaf-off conditions for 

deciduous trees. Difference in light transmittance estimates 

for leaf-on and leaf-off seasons provides an indication of the 

relative influence of hardwoods to overall canopy structure. 

Seasonal differences in canopy coverage also will influence 

the relative proportions of direct and indirect light reaching the 

understory. This seasonal variation in light regimen may have 

an important influence on understory development and species 

composition.

Integration among disciplines also is considered in 

the seasonality of microclimate and microsite surveys. The 

protocol developed by Olson and the BLM (Olson et al., 1996) 

for monitoring amphibians calls for surveys of terrestrial 

amphibians during the spring and fall and surveys of aquatic 

amphibians during the summer. BLM survey protocols are 

microclimate driven and are conducted during periods of high 

relative humidity with ambient air temperatures between 4°

and 16°C (39° and 61°F). Microsite characteristics such as 

downed woody material, forest floor condition and understory 

vegetation are important to defining microhabitat quality 

and may potentially be important to explaining responses of 

amphibians, arthropods and other organisms to the density 

management and riparian buffer treatments.

Table 11. Schedule of major harvest and measurement events by site for the Riparian Microclimate and Microsite Component. 

[P0 through P2 have been conducted according to the year indicated. The third post-treatment measurement event (P3) is planned. Numbers in parentheses 

indicate the number of years post-treatment]

Site

Measurement/Harvest Event

Pre-treatment

(P0)

Initial harvest

(H1)

First post-treatment 

(P1)

Second posttreatment

(P2)

Third post-treatment

(P3)

Bottomline (BL) 1996 1997 1999 (+2) 2002 (+5) 2007 (+10)

Callahan Creek (CC) 1996 1997 1999 (+2) 2002 (+5) 2007 (+10)

Green Peak (GP) 1998 2000 2001 (+1) 2003 (+3) 2010 (+10)

Keel Mountain (KM) 1997 1997-98 1999 (+1) 2003 (+5) 2008 (+10)

OM Hubbard (OM) 1996 1996-98 1999 (+1) 2002 (+4) 2008 (+10)

North Soup Creek (NS) 1998 1998-99 2001 (+2) 2003 (+4) 2009 (+10)

38  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Data Management

Microsite data are collected on portable electronic data 

recorders. Microclimate sensor arrays are calibrated according 

to manufacturer specifications. Sensors are checked and 

recalibrated as necessary prior to each deployment. Upon 

retrieval, sensors are checked under uniform conditions to 

assess potential sensor drift or malfunction. Sensor calibration 

data are stored in either logbooks (early in the study) or 

electronically (current practice).

Field crews receive training in standardized data 

collection techniques with emphasis on vegetation cover 

estimation, line intercept sampling of downed woody material, 

and decay classification of downed woody material. Training 

includes evaluation of variability among observers. Field 

crews follow standardized recording procedures and data are 

field-checked by a crew supervisor. A data manager further 

checks data accuracy employing various arithmetic, graphic, 

and statistical procedures.

Data are currently stored as Microsoft Excel 

spreadsheets. As resources permit, an Access database will 

be developed to provide more efficient data handling into 

the future. Both raw and reduced forms of the data are being 

maintained. The primary data sets are stored on a server at the 

USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon. A complete backup of the 

data is being stored on a server at Oregon State University 

in Corvallis. Database structure and access are coordinated 

through a database manager employed by the Forest Service.

Database documentation follows metadata standards 

promulgated by the National Biological Information 

Infrastructure, a broad, collaborative program to provide 

increased access to data and information on the nation’s 

biological resources (http://www.nbii.gov). The Northwest 

Alliance for Computational Science and Engineering 

(NACSE), an interdisciplinary research coalition located 

at Oregon State University, is dedicated to improving the 

usability of advanced information technology applications for 

practicing scientists and engineers. NACSE is a partner with 

the PNW NBII node and is participating in web and database 

development for the DMS and component studies.

Analytical Approach

Although the DMS was laid out as a complete block 

design with four treatments each repeated at seven sites, the 

distribution of riparian buffer treatments among the sites is 

both imbalanced and incomplete and does not lend itself to a 

typical analysis as a randomized complete block design. Thus, 

rather than explicitly evaluating stand-averaged responses 

to the treatments, our assessments focus on (1) patterns of 

variation in conditions along transects representing a wide 

array of buffer width and density management treatment 

combinations and (2) specific treatment combinations 

represented by sufficient numbers of transects, treatment 

differences to discern the effectiveness of buffer width and the 

influences of thinning intensity.

The experimental units consist of transects spanning a 

combination of buffer type and upslope density management 

treatment features (thinned matrix, patch opening, or leave 

island). This is in contrast to the complimentary aquatic 

vertebrate studies of Olson for which the experimental 

unit is the stream reach. As such, two transects spanning a 

common buffer type and extending into different elements of 

the same upslope thinning treatment (for example, a thinned 

matrix versus a patch opening) are considered samples of 

two different experimental treatments. The nested sample 

plots located along transects are spatially dependent repeated 

measures.

Analyses of treatment effects are built around three 

hypotheses, referred to as tests:

(1) Microclimate/microsite conditions do not differ 

among transects defined by different levels of upslope 

thinning adjacent to one site-potential tree height 

riparian buffers or with respect to unthinned controls;

(2) Microclimate/microsite conditions do not differ 

among transects defined by different levels of upslope 

thinning adjacent to variable-break riparian buffers or 

with respect to unthinned controls;

(3) Microclimate/microsite conditions do not differ 

among transects defined by varying buffer widths 

adjacent to upslope stands thinned to moderate 

density or with respect to unthinned controls.

We evaluate these three hypotheses from four 

perspectives representing different spatial and resource 

contexts. A fundamental interest is whether or not effects 

of the various buffer/thinning treatments are manifest as 

variation in microclimate/microsite conditions as detected 

at (a) the stream center, (b) within the buffer, (c) within the 

upslope thinning, or (d) over the combined buffer/upslope 

thinning transect. From a fisheries or water-quality perspective 

there may be a discrete stream-centric interest in knowing 

whether or not the prescribed stand treatments influence 

potentially important stream conditions. Broader concerns 

regarding treatment effects on associated riparian values 

are also of interest to managers. To evaluate the efficacy 

of riparian buffers, it is beneficial to know the degree of 

upslope perturbation being moderated by the buffers. Finally, 

there may be interest in a basic test of the buffer/thinning 

treatments. 

The majority of our analysis is based on a univariate 

linear modeling approach to detect treatment effects. Mean 

values calculated for three transect zones are used for data: 

stream center, buffer, and upslope. These zone values are 

means of individual point values weighted by the proportional 

Component Studies  39
length of transect zone each point represents. Buffer width 

and density management treatment are fixed effects. Sites are 

random effects. Microclimate, light, understory vegetation, 

woody debris, ground disturbance, and stand structure 

variables (for example, density, basal area, relative density, 

and canopy cover) are the principal response variables.

Linear models are fitted using SAS Proc Mixed software 

(SAS Institute, Carey, NC). Observations for stream center, 

buffer, and upslope zones are repeated measurements of 

transect and therefore, transects are subjects. Pre-defined 

contrasts are used to evaluate significant buffer/density 

management treatment main effects according to the three 

tests described above (table 12). 

For all analyses, we consider sources of variation 

significant if the probability for factor mean values to be the 

same as the general mean is 0.10 or less. We have adopted this 

significance level in the recognition that we have relatively 

few replicates and within- and among-site variation is high. 

Contrast comparisons among treatments will be considered 

significant based on a Bonferroni adjustment of probability 

level to maintain an experiment-wide error rate within the 

p = 0.1 level.

To further elucidate potential associations among 

vegetation, microclimate, light and topography, linear 

regression and multivariate analytical procedures may be 

employed. The relationships among overstory density, as 

measured by basal area and relative density, and understory 

light levels have been quantified via linear regression using 

SAS PROC Mixed. Additional analyses are focused on 

discerning plots having similar vegetation features and 

identifying the microclimatic and topographic variables having 

the greatest influence on vegetation stratification. These 

multivariate analyses are conducted using PC-ORD software 

(MJM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR).

Application of Results

Scope of Inference

The inference scope of this study is confined to microsite 

and microclimate conditions represented by six adaptive 

management study sites in western Oregon. The findings may 

have broader relevance to managers of west-side Cascade and 

Coast Range forests throughout Oregon, parts of Washington 

and beyond. Given the potential for thinning projects over 

the next few decades, both in terms of geographic area 

and number of acres treated, this study may greatly affect 

forest management activities on Federal lands in the Pacific 

Northwest.

This study is based on application of buffer delineations 

and thinning treatments to 40- to 80-year-old, secondgrowth Douglas-fir/hemlock forests. These forests typically 

were fully stocked and within the stem-exclusion phase 

of stand development (Oliver and Larson, 1996) prior to 

implementation of the DMS thinning treatments. The DMS 

includes stands that were previously thinned and stands that 

were previously unthinned prior to implementation of the 

density management and riparian buffer treatments. The 

Riparian Buffer Component of the study addresses only those 

stands that were previously unthinned.

The riparian zones investigated are those associated with 

headwater streams. These streams are generally small and 

of low flow, some being intermittent and only a few bearing 

populations of fishes. The observed interactions among forest 

vegetation, microclimate, hydrology and water quality may be 

substantially different from those of larger streams lower in 

the drainage network (Ice et al., 2004).

40 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

Table 12. Single-degree-of-freedom contrasts to evaluate differences among riparian buffer/density management treatments. 

Test Interpretation

1: Test among upslope density management treatments 

for a 1 site-potential tree height buffer

Harvested (thin and patch opening) vs. unthinned

Light and moderate (48 and 32 TPH) vs. heavy thin (16 TPH)

Heavy (16 TPH) vs. moderate thin (32 TPH)

2: Test among upslope density management treatments 

for a variable-break buffer

Harvested vs. unthinned

Light and moderate vs. heavy thin

Heavy thin vs. patch opening

Light thin vs. unthinned

3: Test among riparian buffer widths for an 80-TPA 

residual density thinning

Wide (one or two site-potential tree heights) vs. narrow (variable width and 

streamside retention) buffers

Wide buffers vs. unthinned

Narrow buffers vs. unthinned

Variable break vs. streamside retention buffers

* - The contrasts listed have been applied to analyses of all microsite variables. Due to the inclusion of fewer treatments in the analyses, the contrasts applied 

in the analyses of light and microclimate are reduced in scope but followed the basic construct as outlined above.
Our assessment of riparian functionality is limited to 

those processes associated with microclimate, coarse wood, 

and dominant vegetative species. We recognize that there are 

numerous physical and biotic factors important to ecosystem 

function that are not being monitored in this study. Thus, 

any inferences about the efficacy of buffers or influences of 

density management are made only in the contexts of the 

measured parameters and across the range of site conditions 

and treatments observed.

Expected Outcomes

Riparian areas are capable of supporting highly 

diverse and dynamic plant communities. Their structure 

and composition affect water quality and habitat for fish 

and wildlife. Riparian areas can also be a sustainable source 

of timber or fiber products. Consequently, vegetation 

management in integrally linked riparian and upland forests 

can have major effects on the productivity of fish, wildlife, and 

timber.

This study will generate basic and applied knowledge 

about temporal and spatial variability of microclimate, 

vegetation, and habitat of riparian and associated upland 

forests. The information generated will elucidate relationships 

among overstory thinning, microclimate, and riparian 

vegetation dynamics. It will be useful to the development 

or refinement of riparian zone functional definitions. The 

data may be useful to the development of conceptual or 

quantitative models linking upslope management to riparian 

zone productivity or habitat suitability. The study results 

will help scientists develop and test hypotheses about forest 

management and its effects on riparian structure, processes, 

and function.

There will likely be multiple ramifications of such 

knowledge. It may be used by managers to define the extent 

of riparian management zones. A policy outcome might be 

Objectives 1. Quantify the range of variability of lichen diversity in young managed forest stands

2. Quantify the relationship between lichen diversity and selected stand structural features

3. Determine whether “hotspots” of lichen diversity can be readily identified from the presence of indicator 

species or certain stand structural features

DMS study sites Bottomline, Lookout Mountain (not currently part of the DMS)

Study design Plots were installed in each treatment unit, and in four units of a site (Lookout Mountain) that was being 

considered for inclusion in the DMS but was later dropped; Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) Program 

protocols were followed for plot design; data have been added to the national FHM database

Primary response variables Species richness, number of species, and species change as measures of lichen diversity; lichen community 

structure assessed through nonmetric multidimensional scaling

Status Completed prior to implementation of initial DMS treatments

Post-treatment measurements planned prior to the second round of DMS treatments

Products Results published (Neitlich and McCune, 1997, see appendix F)

Lichens - Peter Neitlich (National Park Service), Bruce McCune (Oregon State University)

the adoption of guidelines for the use of riparian buffers 

that extends beyond interim guidelines in the NWFP. Other 

government or private entities may choose to apply buffers to 

small headwater streams for which buffers are not currently 

prescribed. Applied information linking riparian forest 

conditions to upland thinning treatments will assist managers 

in developing adaptive management strategies for headwaters 

forests. The study will be particularly useful to foresters 

and aquatic biologists considering thinning adjacent to or 

within riparian reserves prescribed in the Northwest Forest 

Plan. Depending on conclusions drawn regarding the extent 

of riparian buffers needed, the study could have significant 

impact on the proportion of headwater forest area that may 

be considered for thinning. From a Federal land management 

perspective this potentially would affect the number 

and distribution of acres thinned to meet restoration and 

production objectives. Ideally, the results of this study would 

lead to management decisions that sustain essential riparian 

functions.

Collaborative Studies

Short-term studies that use a subset of DMS sites are 

termed collaborative studies. These studies take advantage 

of the diverse conditions imposed by the DMS treatments or 

capitalize on other datasets characterizing response variables 

of interest to address important science and management 

questions. Collaborative studies are usually funded on an 

opportunistic basis and are encouraged as long as they do 

not conflict with ongoing studies or other objectives for the 

site. Potential collaborators are encouraged to contact the 

study coordinator or any of the scientists or site coordinators 

involved with the study for further information. Brief 

summaries of past and ongoing collaborative studies follow.

Collaborative Studies  41
Leave Islands - Stephanie Wessell (Oregon State University), Deanna Olson (Pacific Northwest Research Station), and Richard Schmitz 

(Oregon State University)

Objectives The primary study objective was to compare the role of leave islands and moderately thinned forest as 

habitat for taxonomic groups that are potentially sensitive to ground-disturbing activities (vascular plants, 

amphibians, mollusks, and soil arthropods). Specifically, our study objectives were to:

1. Compare the composition and abundance of low-mobility, ecologically sensitive species between five 

forest types: thinned, unthinned, 0.1-, 0.2-, and 0.4-ha leave islands

2. Characterize microclimate and forest stand structure

3. Relate gradients in biotic communities to measured environmental variables

DMS study sites Bottomline, Delph Creek, Green Peak, Keel Mountain

Study design Study design surveyed biota and habitat within five forest types: unthinned forest, thinned forest, and 0.1-, 

0.2-, and 0.4-ha leave islands. Three replicates of each forest type were randomly selected at each of the 

four study sites (n=60)

Primary response variables Biotic response variables included vascular plant, amphibian, mollusk, and arthropod abundance and 

diversity. Habitat response variables included microclimate, downed wood volume, substrate, and forest 

structure and composition

Status Master’s thesis defended in June 2005

Manuscripts will be submitted for publication in September 2005

Products 1. Wessell, Stephanie J. 2005. The role of leave islands for biodiversity and habitat in managed forests of the 

Pacific Northwest, U.S.A. Master’s thesis, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, Oregon

2. Wessell, Stephanie J., Deanna H. Olson, and Richard A. Schmitz. 2005 submission. The role of upslope 

leave islands for low-mobility species and habitat in western Oregon managed forest landscapes. 

Ecological Monographs

3. Wessell, Stephanie J., Deanna H. Olson, and Richard A. Schmitz. 2005. Leave islands as refugia for lowmobility species in managed forests, p. 379. In C. Peterson and D. Maguire, editors. Balancing ecosystem 

values: innovative experiments for sustainable forestry. Proceedings. PNW-GTR, p. 635. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon

4. Wessell, Stephanie J., Deanna H. Olson, and Richard A. Schmitz. 2005. Effects of thinning on 

microclimate, plants, and low-mobility animals in managed Oregon forests. Abstract. Northwestern 

Naturalist. In press

5. Posters and oral presentations

Objectives Inventory macrofungal response to five density management treatments: three thinning levels, a 1-acre patch 

opening, and a 1-acre leave island

DMS study sites Green Peak

Study design All target and unknown species were collected in strip transects in each treatment

Primary response variables Species richness of all ectomycorrhizal epigeous basidiomycetes and 40 non-ectomycorrhizal epigeous 

basidiomycetes, soil temperature

Status Pre-treatment and years 1-5 post-treatment data have been collected and analyzed

Additional post-treatment measurements are planned

Products Initial results published (Norvell and Exeter, 2004; see appendix F)

Fungi - Lorelei Norvell (Pacific Northwest Mycology Service), Ron Exeter (BLM Salem District)

42  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Objectives 1. Compare the diversity, abundance, and community composition of forest floor bryophytes in both young 

and old-growth stands, and between “diversity” plots and “matrix” plots for each stand type

2. Quantify relationships of bryophytes to large log substrates by decay class in both young and old-growth 

stands

3. Infer changes in bryophyte community associations over time as related to large log decay class

DMS study sites Bottomline, Lookout Point (not currently part of DMS)

Study design Prior to treatment, 24 plots were established in a young stand and 6 plots were located in an old stand at each 

site. One-half of the plots were located in “diversity” areas and half in “matrix” areas

Primary response variables Bryophyte species cover, log and humus decay class, and other environmental variables

Status Completed

Products Results published (Rambo and Muir, 1998a; Rambo and Muir, 1998b, see appendix F)

Bryophytes - Pat Muir (Oregon State University), Tom Rambo (Oregon State University)

Collaborative Studies  43

Songbirds - Jennifer Weikel (Oregon State University), Dan Edge (Oregon State University)

Objectives Evaluate the response of songbirds to the DMS treatments

DMS study sites Bottomline, OM Hubbard, Green Peak, Ten High

Study design Fixed-radius point counts along transects

Primary response variables Nesting songbird abundance

Status Pre-treatment and immediate post-treatment data collected

Follow-up post-treatment planned for 2007-2008

Products Results summarized in the 2000 CFER (Cooperative Forest Ecosystem Research) annual report

Understory Vegetation Patterns Across Canopy Gaps - Robert Fahey (Oregon State University), Klaus Puettmann (Oregon State University)

Objectives Evaluate whether canopy gaps created with small patch cuts enhance small-scale heterogeneity and diversity 

in understory vegetative community composition and structure

DMS study sites Bottomline, Keel Mountain, North Soup, OM Hubbard

Study design Three or four gaps of each size (0.25 and 1.0 acres) were sampled per site with small quadrats along 

transects that spanned the gap and extended into the surrounding thinned forest. Plots characterizing the 

thinned forest without gap influence were also used.

Primary response variables Percent cover for all vascular plant species, growth form types, and substrate surface types; light availability

Status Complete

Products Fahey, Robert T. 2005. Patterns in understory vegetation communities across canopy gaps in young, 

Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon. Masters thesis on file at Oregon State University, 153 p.

Additional manuscripts are in preparation.

Objectives 1. Assess year-to-year variation in flower or fruit production for five shrub species

2. Assess the effects of four overstory treatments on flower or fruit production for five shrub species

DMS study sites Bottomline, OM Hubbard

Study design Suitable patches or individual shrubs were randomly selected from a population of identified suitable patches 

or individual shrubs for each of the four treatments

Primary response variables Basal diameter, height, crown diameter, stem density, flower racemes, fruit production

Status Complete

Products Published (Bailey and Tappeiner, 1998; Bailey et al., 1998; Wender, Harrington, and Tappeiner, 2004, see 

appendix F)

Understory Shrubs and Trees - John Tappeiner (Oregon State University)
Objectives 1. Characterize headwater stream environments and aquatic ecosystem characteristics

2. Describe the relationships among stand density, understory vegetation, riparian environment, and stream 

flow and water quality in forested headwater streams

DMS study sites Green Peak, Sand Creek, Ten High, Hammer Creek (non DMS site)

Study design Riparian characteristics measured along five riparian area transects oriented perpendicular to the stream and 

running from the stream upslope for each study stream reach; in-stream characteristics measured at fixed 

intervals along each 100-meter study reach

Primary response variables Riparian: basal area, tree density, overstory cover, composition, live crown ratio, light, air and soil 

temperature, humidity, soil water potential, dead wood.

In-stream: physical habitat, water temperature, macroinvertebrate community structure and biomass, 

periphyton community structure and biomass, water quality (nutrients, turbidity, conductivity)

Status Data collection complete

Analysis ongoing

Products Posters; manuscripts in preparation

Aquatic and Riparian Functions - Samuel Chan (Oregon State University), Robert Danehy (Weyerhaeuser Corporation), Maryanne 

Reiter (Weyerhaeuser Corporation)

44  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

Objectives 1. To evaluate the effects of density management and riparian buffer width on the total density, species 

richness, and biomass of ground-dwelling terrestrial arthropods adjacent to headwater streams

2. To evaluate the effects of density management and riparian buffer width on the species richness and 

biomass of aquatic invertebrate species in headwater streams

3. To determine whether thinning changes the flight patterns of emergent aquatic adult insects

DMS study sites Delph Creek, Green Peak, Keel Mountain

Study design 1. Terrestrial species - thinned areas and gaps are compared to two controls: unthinned DMS control treatments 

and nearby clearcuts; sampling is by pitfall traps

2. Aquatic species - streams in thinned areas with alternative riparian buffer widths will be sampled and 

compared to stream reaches in untreated control areas; sampling is by emergence tent traps

3. Flight patterns - flight patterns in thinned and control areas will be sampled with flight-intercept and 

malaise traps placed in arrays perpendicular to streams (Green Peak only)

Primary response variables 1. Total density, species richness, and biomass of ground-dwelling terrestrial arthropods

2. Species richness and biomass of aquatic invertebrate

3. Total density of flying insects

Status Sampling complete

Species identification and database development complete

Analyses underway

Publications in development

Products Final reports and published manuscripts are planned for each topic:

1. The effects of density management and riparian buffer width on the total density, species richness, and 

biomass of ground-dwelling terrestrial arthropods adjacent to headwater streams

2. The effects of density management and riparian buffer width on aquatic insect emergence from headwater 

streams

3. The seasonal and geographic distribution of flighted insect biomass in forests and the effects of thinning

Also,

A joint manuscript oriented to managers that integrates the invertebrate responses to alternative riparian 

buffer widths with the microclimate and aquatic vertebrate components

Contribute toward development of an automated aquatic invertebrate identification system (separately funded 

by NSF)

Arthropods - Andrew Moldenke (Oregon State University)
Treatment and Measurement Schedule  45

Treatment and Measurement Schedule

Study treatments are now defined by multiple, sequential 

manipulations. Ecosystem responses measured after the 

second round of treatments scheduled for 2009-2011 can not 

be attributed to a single management activity, but will be the 

result of a set of manipulations. To minimize problems due 

to confounding effects, we plan to document response to the 

initial manipulations 11 years after implementation. These 

measurements also will be used to characterize the study site 

prior to the second round of treatments. The second entry is 

planned 12 years after the initial manipulation. Delay will lead 

to lower data quality and should be avoided. 

Table 13. Initial thinning sites.

Site name Majority first treatment completeInitial vegetation 

measurement (date/

growing seasons post 

harvest)

Second vegetation 

measurement (year/

growing seasons post 

harvest)

Third vegetation measurement (year/growing seasons post 

harvest)

Second treatment 

(year)

Bottomline 11-1997 09-1998/1 2003/6 2008/11 2009

OM Hubbard 11-1997 09-2000/3 2003/6 2008/11 2009

Keel Mountain 12-1997 09-1999/2 2003/6 2008/11 2009

Callahan Creek 04-1998 Not taken Not taken Not planned 2009

North Soup 08-1998 09-2000/2 2004/6 2009/11 2010

Green Peak 01-2000 04-2002/2 2005/6 2010/11 2011

Ten High 01-2000 04-2002/2 2005/6 2010/11 2011

Delph Creek 04-2000 03-2003/3 2005/6 2010/11 2011

NOTE: Vegetation plots are not established at the Callahan Creek site, though it will be re-treated and re-measured as part of the riparian buffer studies

Table 14. Rethinning sites.

Site name Majority first treatment completeInitial vegetation 

measurement (date/

growing seasons post 

harvest)

Second vegetation 

measurement (year/

growing seasons post 

harvest)

Third vegetation measurement (year/growing seasons post 

harvest)

Second treatment 

(year)

Sand Creek 11-1997 09-1998/1 2003/6 2008/11 2009

Little Wolf 09-1998 07-2000/2 2004/6 2009/11 2010

Blue Retro 03-1999 08-1999/1 2004/6 2009/11 2010

Perkins Creek 03-2000 10-2000/1 2005/6 2010/11 2011

The current measurement schedule standardizes 

field measurements to the same year of post-treatment 

development so that measurements are comparable 

across study components (tables 13 and 14). Vegetation 

measurements have been collected and are planned on a 5-year 

re-measurement schedule (years 1, 6, and 11 post-treatment). 

Other measurements (for example, aquatic vertebrates and 

microhabitat) were not taken on the same schedule for a 

variety of reasons (for example, study initiation date or 

funding availability), but will follow the same schedule in the 

future, pending funding availability.
46  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

Study Administration

Successful administration of the DMS requires 

consideration of the information needs and roles filled by 

key individuals within each of the partner organizations. 

Each partner makes decisions and allocates resources at 

multiple levels and evaluates project success, in part, by client 

satisfaction with project products. Thus, multiple pathways of 

information flow and decision-making are in play.

The DMS Study Coordinator, Principal Investigators, 

and Site Coordinators play the principal roles in developing 

and coordinating the study and in communicating about 

study progress and needs (fig. 8 and table 15). The Study 

Coordinator has the primary responsibility for maintaining 

the flow of information among all study participants, for 

coordinating planning and development of the study, and for 

briefing the BLM State Office on the status of the study and 

needs for support. The Principal Investigators (PIs) provide 

science leadership and methods development and ensure their 

home institutions are well informed. Each study site has a 

designated Site Coordinator who serves as the primary point 

of contact with the field units. Regular communication is 

maintained through email and two annual meetings among 

PIs, Site Coordinators, BLM State Office staff and the Study 

Coordinator.

Decision making follows multiple channels, primarily 

through each institutions’ normal processes. Major decisions 

require more complex processes to ensure that short- and 

long-term needs from all partners can be met and that 

resources are likely to be available to successfully follow 

through on data collection, analysis, and publication. The 

DMS Steering Committee serves as a body of well-placed 

advisors helping guide the study through complex, multiinstitutional issues. For example, the decision to undertake a 

second round of treatments was made following an extended 

process that included a field trip among study participants 

to clarify information needs and treatment opportunities, 

several iterations of proposal development by DMS principle 

investigators with field review, a workshop and fieldtrips by 

BLM managers and resource specialists, review and advice by 

the DMS Steering Committee, and briefings for both BLM and 

PNW leadership.

In addition to designation of a Study Coordinator and 

Site Coordinators, the BLM has taken a number of steps to 

“institutionalize” the study in an effort to ensure long-term 

continuity and study site maintenance. Study sites will be 

recognized in the new Resource Management Plans as special 

areas dedicated to the DMS, and study sites are integrated 

into the BLM corporate spatial database. The State Office 

periodically issues formal direction memos to the field 

(Appendixes A, B, and C) regarding major study activities, 

and includes DMS budget direction to the field units in 

each years program of work. At the field level, subtreatment 

locations are marked with signs and plot locations are recorded 

with GPS units.

Figure 8. Principal lines of communication
Study Administration  47

DMS Coordinator

Serves as the primary point of contact for the DMS

Coordinates response to internal or external information requests

Ensures adequate communication among all parties involved in the 

DMS

Resolves DMS issues

Identifies budget needs and formulates an annual budget strategy

Works with BLM Oregon State Office (OSO) program leads to 

procure needed BLM funds

Works with DMS Principal Investigators (PIs) to ensure study plans 

are feasible and that BLM information needs are addressed as 

practicable

Coordinates with the PIs on science issues, opportunities, and 

synthesis

Works with Site Coordinators to ensure DMS PIs’ needs are met as 

feasible

Coordinates planning for future treatments

Coordinates implementation of future treatments

Works with BLM OSO procurements and agreements staff and PIs 

to develop and process agreements and procurements

Works with CFER outreach staff and others to develop DMS 

products and information-sharing events (for example, tours, 

workshops)

Serves as primary contact for DMS website hosted by the National 

Biological Information Infrastructure 

Works with others to identify needs and opportunities for additional 

collaborative studies to meet BLM needs

Site Coordinator

Reviews DMS study plans to ensure operational feasibility and that 

BLM management needs are considered

Ensures that DMS treatments are implemented in a timely manner 

according to the study plan

Ensures that DMS treatment areas are adequately marked on the 

ground

Coordinates and maintains DMS GIS databases

Provides information to support DMS website development

Serves as primary point of contact for the DMS site at the district 

and resource area

Keeps staff at the district and resource area informed of DMS 

direction, needs, and opportunities

Keeps the DMS Coordinator informed of issues and opportunities

Provides information to support development of DMS outreach 

products such as field tours

Informs the DMS coordinator of local needs to develop additional 

collaborative studies

Ensures road and trail access to study sites is maintained

Principal Investigator (PI)

Implements the work described in study plans and related 

agreements and contracts

Develops reports and publications for broad dissemination

Keeps the DMS Coordinator informed of the status of DMS 

measurements, analysis, reporting and outreach activities

Works with the DMS Coordinator and the Site Coordinators to 

integrate BLM information needs into study plans as feasible

Keeps DMS study plans current, and obtains reviews of changes to 

study plans from the DMS Coordinator

Identifies opportunities for additional collaborative studies

Keeps the DMS Coordinator informed of funding needs and 

opportunities

Works with the DMS Coordinator to develop outreach products 

and participates in outreach events (for example, tours and 

workshops)

Provides information and data to support the DMS website

DMS Steering Committee 

(BLM OSO science program branch chief, BLM district manager, 

CFER program manager, PNW program manager, 

USGS FRESC research manager)

Stays informed of DMS status, needs, and opportunities

Identifies trends and future information needs that could be 

addressed in the DMS

Advises the Study Coordinator on strategies for resolving major 

issues and obtaining funds

BLM Program Leads (silviculture, timber, wildlife)

Stays informed of DMS status, needs, and opportunities

Works with the DMS Coordinator and PIs to ensure that BLM 

management needs are addressed in the DMS

Works with the DMS Coordinator to obtain funds to support the 

DMS

Identifies trends and future information needs that could be 

addressed via additional collaborative studies

District Management

Ensures that provision of necessary funds and work months are 

consistent with the State Office budget directives and priorities

Assists the site coordinators with local resource support necessary 

for DMS planning, implementation, and monitoring activities

Keeps informed of the status of the DMS

Participates in local field tours as appropriate to provide a 

management perspective on the value of these studies

Provides a strategic perspective to the site coordinator concerning 

the potential future value of the DMS site(s)

Table 15. Roles.
48  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

Funding

Funding for the DMS has been contributed by several 

partners and has varied over time (table 16). Funds have been 

allocated out of base funding from each agency to support 

salary costs of scientists, research assistants, site coordinators, 

and the study coordinator. In addition, supplemental funds 

have been procured from grants and other agency funding 

processes to pay for assistance agreements with OSU and 

Pacific Northwest Mycology Services (PNWMS). Scientists 

with OSU and PNWMS have contributed significant portions 

of their time to help advance the DMS.

Start-up funding was provided by USGS through the 

Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center to initiate 

study planning and implementation. Several small case studies 

were also begun with USGS funding (lichens, bryophytes, 

understory regeneration, and songbirds). Beginning in 2002, 

DMS website development has been funded through the 

National Biological Information Infrastructure, a national 

program of USGS intended to increase access to scientific 

information.

The BLM and PNW Research Station have supplied 

the majority of the financing (table 17). The PNW Research 

Station has contributed more than 3 million dollars through 

2005, primarily for the Riparian Buffer Study Components. 

Data collection and management have consumed most of this 

funding. Roughly 60 percent of these funds derived from base 

funds with the remainder coming from internal competitions. 

The BLM has provided supplemental funds through interagency agreements to support these studies, particularly in 

years where there have been greater funding needs or less 

financial support from PNW.

The BLM has provided salary support for the study 

coordinator and for site coordinators for each study site. 

The BLM also has assumed responsibility for funding 

the vegetation work. Vegetation plot installation and 

measurements were the responsibility of BLM field units 

through 2002 when these responsibilities were transferred 

to OSU through a Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit 

agreement funded by the BLM. The unusually large 

amounts of funds for the vegetation work in 2004 is due to 

a decision to advance the funding cycle by one year to avoid 

timing problems encountered by time lags in budgeting and 

procurement. Hence, two years of work were funded in one 

year. OSU has contributed substantial in-kind resources to 

support this work.

Outreach

Since its inception, interest in the DMS has been high. 

A range of media and activities has been used to share 

information and to promote awareness and discussion of DMS 

treatments and findings. Field tours enable researchers and 

forest managers to visualize the effects of various silvicultural 

prescriptions on forest structure and composition, and to 

discuss the potential effects of different management practices 

on future stand conditions. They are an effective mechanism 

to exchange information and views, and are a mainstay of 

the DMS outreach program. Field tours are conducted as part 

of workshops and symposia, for university classes, and on 

request. Short administrative trails have been built at the Delph 

Creek, Green Peak, and Keel Mountain sites to support field 

tours. Care is taken to use these trails and other locations to 

avoid measurement plots.

Oral and poster presentations of DMS findings 

are frequently given at workshops and symposia. These 

presentations have been part of both science- and 

management-oriented events and are an efficient means 

to share information. Talks and posters have been given at 

regional, National, and International meetings or conferences 

and have served to highlight current thinking regarding density 

management and riparian objectives.

Written materials are a key component of DMS outreach 

and include both traditional outlets and electronic formatting 

and access through the DMS website (http://ocid.nacse.

org/nbii/density/). Manuscripts have been published in 

agency science publications, symposia proceedings, science 

journals, and as book chapters. Many of these publications 

and additional progress reports, proposals, study plans, and 

notes are available through the DMS website. Access to 

DMS vegetation datasets also is possible through the website. 

Website development has been supported by funding through 

the National Biological Information Infrastructure, a program 

of USGS, and implemented by the Northwest Alliance 

for Computational Science and Engineering (NACSE). 

Appendix F lists DMS papers, posters, abstracts, and reports.

In combination, these media and activities reach an 

extensive number of interested individuals. For example, 

in 2003 approximately 1,125 individuals were exposed to 

the DMS through ten field tours and ten presentations at 

workshops and symposia, and in 2004 approximately 995 

individuals participated in nine field tours and five oral 

presentations.
Study Administration  49

Table 16. DMS funding sources (in thousands of dollars).

Year

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Vegetation

- BLM 48 52 117 14 88 171 355 108

Microclimate

- PNW

- BLM

63 83 83 83 109 109 277

50

279

50

191

50

101

63

203

Aquatic Vertebrates

- PNW

- BLM

83 83 130 200 200 200 281 240 240 27

72

10

72

Arthropods

- BLM 33 33 33 33 27 20 37 50 50

Leave Islands

- PNW 66 60 11 23 3

Fungi

- PNW Mycology Service

- BLM

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

12

12

12

12

12

12

Lichens

- OSU

- BLM

- USGS

10

10 17

Bryophytes

- OSU

- BLM

- USGS

6

6

8

8

Understory Regeneration

- USGS 12 12 12 12

Songbirds

- USGS 10 10 10

Website

- USGS 15 15 15 30

Project Coordination

- BLM

- USGS 44 47

12

36

26

26

53 57 60 64 67 65 61 69

Supplies

- BLM 20 22 20 12 6 5

Total 109 242 247 298 421 503 554 812 894 829 797 524

Notes:

1. Responsibility for vegetation plot installation and measurements were transferred from a BLM district responsibility to OSU through a BLM-funded 

agreement after 2002.

2. Funds for the Leave Island Study were procured by PNW from the interagency (Forest Service and BLM) Survey and Manage fund.

3. Project coordination includes Study Coordinator salary at 12 months/year from 1994 through 2002, and Study Coordinator salary at 6 months/year and Site 

Coordinator salary at one month/year for each from 2003 through 2005.

4. Funds displayed in the table are only for readily measured out-of-pocket costs; many in-kind contributions are difficult to estimate and are not displayed.

5. Federal funds are shown in the year in which they are obligated.
Table 17. Direct funding contributions by organization (in thousands of dollars)

 

Year

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total

BLM 49 33 45 59 128 142 210 163 275 360 619 266 2,349

OSU 16 8 24

PNW 146 166 213 283 309 309 624 579 442 151 216 3,438

PNW Mycology 

Service

13 13 13 13 12 12 12 88

USGS 44 55 36 26 10 39 22 12 27 15 15 30 331

Total 109 242 247 298 421 503 554 812 894 829 797 524 6,230

50 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

Opportunities and Needs

The DMS provides an experimental template suitable 

for studying many aspects of young stand ecology and 

management. The BLM and collaborating scientists are 

very interested in maximizing the potential of these sites to 

contribute new knowledge. New collaborative studies are 

encouraged and supported as feasible, provided they will 

not conflict with ongoing or future planned work. Potential 

subjects of interest suitable for additional collaborative studies 

on the DMS sites include:

Stand and Habitat Development

•	 What stand structures and spatial patterns resulting 

from thinning favor the development and persistence 

of ecologically significant levels of hardwood tree and 

shrub communities?

•	 How does thinning and small patch cuts affect changes 

within crown structures and habitats, especially in 

terms of platforms for wildlife and branch-size effects 

on wood quality?

•	 How does the choice of logging system affect habitat 

development?

•	 Do the particular arrangements of riparian buffers and 

upslope features (thinned patches, leave islands, small 

patch openings) at a stand scale significantly affect the 

habitat of terrestrial vertebrates?

•	 How do various density management and riparian 

buffer approaches affect reciprocal aquatic-terrestrial 

subsidies in headwaters? For example, does thinning 

influence aquatic invertebrates that are food for birds, 

bats, etc.?

Effects of Young Stand Management

•	 How does density management affect fruit and seed 

consumption by wildlife?

•	 What is the response of deer forage to thinning?

•	 What are the effects of density management with 

contemporary logging practices on surface erosion, soil 

compaction, stream temperature, and hydrology?

Landscapes

Landscape issues increasingly influence management 

considerations and objectives for young stand management. 

Research needs include both questions of how the broader 

landscape influences specific stand responses and what the 

landscape response might be if these stand management 

practices were implemented across broad landscapes. For 

example:

•	 Are there significant landscape influences on standscale responses (for example, sources of plant or 

animal immigrants, connectivity of stream network)?

•	 Can wildlife responses to landscape-scale young 

stand management be discerned through retrospective 

studies?

•	 What are effective scales for designing variable density 

thinning?

Landscape models will often be used to address these 

types of questions because of the difficulties involved with 

conducting landscape research. Landscape models can also 

help frame and synthesize hypotheses and data needed 

to answer these questions. Although many managers and 

investigators are interested in large landscape questions, 

fundamental knowledge is often lacking at the patch-to-patch 
Literature Cited  51

scale. A next step at scaling up could involve investigating 

landscape functions at the patch-to-patch scale, for example, 

flows of exotic plant propagules or dispersal of amphibians 

across patch types. This kind of information could help 

develop and validate landscape models.

Although the DMS is not designed to address these 

landscape issues, scientists and managers involved with the 

study are keenly interested in young-stand landscape issues.

Integration

The DMS and other young stand studies in the region 

have been established for over a decade and offer an 

opportunity to integrate results. Integration can produce 

new insights into the linkages among response variables, 

and lead to new hypotheses regarding system performance. 

Integration can occur at multiple scales. For example, at the 

treatment scale, microsite and microclimate responses to 

treatment could be linked to amphibian habitat suitability or 

abundance through joint analyses of data sets developed from 

an overlapping sampling scheme. At the regional scale, there 

is potential for integration among young-stand studies by 

evaluation of response patterns across the range of treatments 

in existing studies. Some of this work has been initiated 

through an OSU-PNW synthesis project using a Bayesian 

model (verHoef, 1996, Borsuk et al., 2004) to link wildlife, 

vegetation, and other response variables to overstory thinning. 

The emphasis is on defining common trends in response 

rather than absolute responses, and to quantifying the level of 

certainty associated with response estimates. There is great 

potential to bring additional sources of data and to expand the 

range of linkage functions in this analysis.

Literature Cited

Alaback, P.B. and F.R. Herman. 1988. Long-term response 

of understory vegetation to stand density in Picea-Tsuga

forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 18:1522-1530.

Andrews, L.S., J.P. Perkins, J.A. Thrailkill, N.J. Poage, and 

J.C. Tappeiner II. 2005. Silvicultural approaches to develop 

northern spotted owl nesting sites, central Coast Ranges, 

Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 20:13-27. 

Ash, A.N. 1997. Disappearance and return of plethodontid 

salamanders to clearcut plots in the Southern Blue Ridge 

Mountains. Conservation Biology 11: 983-989.

Bailey, John Duff. 1996. Effects of stand density reduction 

on structural development in western Oregon Douglas-fir 

forests : a reconstruction study. Ph.D. thesis. Oregon State 

University. 

Bailey, J.D. and J.C. Tappeiner. 1998. Effects of thinning on 

structural development in 40- to 100-year-old Douglasfir stands in western Oregon. Forest Ecology and 

Management 108:99-113.

Bailey, J.D., C. Mayrsohn, P.S. Doescher, E. St Pierre, and 

J.C. Tappeiner. 1998. Understory vegetation in old and 

young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon. Forest 

Ecology and Management 112:289-302.

Beggs, L.R. 2005. Vegetation response following thinning in 

young Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon: Can thinning 

accelerate development of late-successional structure and 

composition? Masters Thesis, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, OR, USA.

Berger, A.L. and K.J. Puettmann. 2000. Overstory 

composition and stand structure influence herbaceous 

plant diversity in the mixed aspen forest of northern 

Minnesota. American Midland Naturalist 143:111-125.

Berry, K.J., K.L. Kvamme, and P.W. Mielke, Jr. 1983. 

Improvements in the permutation test for the spatial 

analysis of the distribution of artifacts into classes. 

American Antiquity 48: 547-553.

Beschta, R.L., R.E. Bilby, G.W. Brown, L.B. Holtby, and 

T.D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic 

habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. In: Salo, E.O.; 

Cundy, T.W., (eds.) Forestry and fisheries interactions. 

Contribution Number 57. Seattle, Washington: University 

of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources. pp. 191-232.

Bisson, P.A., R.E. Bilby, M.D. Bryant, C.A. Dollof, G.B. 

Grette, R.A. House, M.L. Murphy, K.V. Koski, and J.R. 

Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in 

the Pacific Northwest: past, present, and future. In: Salo, 

E.O. and T.W. Cundy, (eds.) Streamside management: 

forestry and fishery interactions. Contribution Number. 57. 

Seattle, Washington: University of Washington, Institute of 

Forest Resources. pp. 143-190.

Bisson, P.A., M.G. Raphael, A.D. Foster, and L.L.C. 

Jones. 2002. Influence of site and landscape features on 

vertebrate assemblages in small streams. In: Johnson, 

A.C.; R.W. Haynes, and R.A. Monserud (eds.) Congruent 

Management of Multiple Resources: Proceedings from 

the Wood Compatibility Workshop; December 5-7, 2001, 

Skamania Lodge, Stevenson, WA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-563. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 61-72.

Blaustein, A.R., J.J. Beatty, D.H. Olson, R.M. Storm. 1995. 

The biology of amphibians and reptiles in old-growth 

forests in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Report. 

PNW-GTR-337. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 98 p.
Borsuk, M.E., C.A. Stow, and K.H. Reckhow. 2004. A 

Bayesian network of eutrophication models for synthesis, 

prediction, and uncertainty analysis. Ecol. Model. 173:219-

239. 

Brosofske, K.D., J. Chen, R.J. Naiman, and J.F. Franklin. 

1997. Harvesting effects on microclimatic gradients from 

small streams to uplands in western Washington. Ecological 

Applications 7: 1188-1200.

Burton, T.M. and G.E. Likens. 1975. Salamander populations 

and biomass in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest. 

Copeia 1975:541-546.

Bury, R.B. 1988. Habitat relationships and ecological 

importance of amphibians and reptiles. In: Raedeke K.L. 

(ed.) Streamside management: Riparian Wildlife and 

Forestry Interactions. Contribution 59. Institute of Forestry 

Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. pp. 61-76.

Bury, B.R. and S.P. Corn. 1988. Responses of aquatic and 

streamside amphibians to timber harvest: a review. In: 

Raedeke, K.J. (ed.) Streamside management: riparian 

wildlife and forestry interactions. Institute of Forestry 

Resources. Contribution 59. Seattle, Washington: University 

of Washington. pp. 61-76.

Bury, B.R. and S.P. Corn. 1991. Sampling methods for 

amphibians in streams in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. 

Report. PNW-GTR-275. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 29 p.

Carey, A.B., and M.L. Johnson. 1995. Small mammals 

in managed, naturally young, and old-growth forests. 

Ecological Applications 5:336-352.

Chan, S. 1994. Dynamics of planted conifers and hardwoods 

in the understory of hardwood dominated riparian zones. 

In: The Ecology and Management of Oregon Coast Range 

Forests. A mid-term COPE symposium, March 29-31, 

Gleneden Beach, Oregon.

Chen J., J.F. Franklin, and T.A. Spies. 1993a. An empirical 

model for predicting diurnal air-temperature gradients 

from edge into old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecological 

Modeling 67: 179-198.

Chen J., J.F. Franklin, and T.A. Spies. 1993b. Contrasting 

microclimates among clearcut, edge, and interior old-growth 

Douglas-fir forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 63: 

219-237.

Chen, J., S.C. Saunders, T.R. Crow, R.J. Naiman, K.D. 

Brosofske, G.D. Mroz, B.L. Brookshire, and J.F. Franklin. 

1999. Microclimate in forest ecosystem and landscape 

ecology: variations in local climate can be used to monitor 

and compare the effects of different management regimes. 

BioScience 49(4): 288-297.

Chen, J.J., J.F. Franklin, and T.A. Spies. 1995. Growing season 

microclimate gradients from clearcut edges into old-growth 

Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications 5:74-86.

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. 

Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, 

R.J. Gutierrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. 

Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted 

Owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon.

Curtis, R.O. 1982. A simple index of stand density for 

Douglas-fir. Forest Science 28(1): 92-94.

Danehy, R.J. and B.J. Kirpes. 2000. Relative humidity 

gradients across riparian areas in eastern Oregon and 

Washington forests. Northwest Science 74(3): 224-233.

deMaynadier, P.G. and M.L. Hunter, Jr. 1995. The relationship 

between forest management and amphibian ecology: a 

review of the North American literature. Environmental 

Review 3: 230-261.

Dufrêne, M. and P. Legendre, 1997. Species assemblages 

and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical 

approach. Ecological Monographs, 67: 345-366.

Everett, R.L., and S.H. Sharrow. 1985. Soil water and 

temperature in harvested and nonharvested pinyon-juniper 

stands. USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW-RP342. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

Ogden, Utah.

FEMAT. 1993. Forest Ecosystems Management: an ecological, 

economic, and social assessment. Report of the forest 

ecosystem management assessment team. Portland, Oregon: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of 

Interior [and others]. USGPO:1993-793-071.

Franklin, J. F. and R. Van Pelt. 2004. Spatial aspects of 

structural complexity. Journal of Forestry 102:22-28.

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

A. Thornburgh, D. R. Berg, D. B. Lindenmayer, M. E. 

Harmon, W. S. Keeton, D. C. Shaw, K. Bible, and J. Chen. 

2002. Disturbances and structural development of natural 

forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using 

Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecology and 

Management 155:399-423.

Furnish, J., A. Moldenke, and R. Progar. 1997. Proposal 

to analyze emergence trap samples for the Density 

Management Study. Research proposal on file at the USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forest 

Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 5 p.

Gilliam, F.S., N.L. Turrill, and M.B. Adams. 1995. 

Herbaceous-layer and overstory species in clear-cut and 

mature central Appalachian hardwood forests. Ecological 

Applications 5:947-955.

52  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Gray, A.N., T.A. Spies, and M.J. Easter. 2002. Microclimatic 

and soil moisture responses to gap formation in coastal 

Douglas-fir forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 

32:332-343.

Gray, A.N. 1995. Tree establishment on heterogeneous 

microhabitats in Douglas-fir forest canopy gaps. Ph.D. 

Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Gray, A.N. and T.A. Spies. 1992. Tree establishment in 

canopy openings in mature Douglas-fir forests. Northwest 

Environmental Journal 1:207.

Gregory, S.V. 1997. Riparian management in the 21st 

century. In: Kohm, K.A. and J.F. Franklin (eds). Creating 

a forestry for the 21st century: The Science of Ecosystem 

Management. Island Press, Washington D.C. 475 p.

Hankin, D.G. and G.H. Reeves. 1988. Estimating total fish 

abundance and total habitat area in small streams based on 

visual estimation methods. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 45:834-844.

Harmon, M.E., J.F. Franklin, F.J. Swanson, P. Sollins, S.V. 

Gregory, J.D. Lattin, N.H. Anderson, S.P. Cline, N.G. 

Aumen, J.R. Sedell, G.W. Lienkaemper, K. Cromack, Jr., 

and K.W. Cummins. 1986. Ecology of coarse woody debris 

in temperate ecosystems. Advances in Ecological Research 

15:133–302.

Harmon, M.E. and J. Sexton. 1996. Guidelines for 

measurements of woody detritus in forest ecosystems. 

Publication No. 20. U.S. LTER Network Office: University 

of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 

Hayes, J.P., S.S. Chan, W.H. Emmingham, J.C. Tappeiner, 

L.D. Kellogg, and J.D. Bailey. 1997. Wildlife response to 

thinning young forests in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of 

Forestry 95:28-33.

Hayes, J.P., M.D. Adams, D. Bateman, E. Dent, W.E. 

Emmingham, K.G. Maas, and A.E. Skaugset. 1996. 

Integrating research and forest management in riparian areas 

of the Oregon Coast Range. Western Journal of Applied 

Forestry. 11(3):85-89.

He, F. and H.J. Barclay. 2000. Long-term response of 

understory plant species to thinning and fertilization in a 

Douglas-fir plantation on southern Vancouver Island, British 

Columbia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30:566-

572.

Hibbs, D.E. and P. Giordano. 1996. Vegetation characteristics 

of alder-dominated riparian buffer strips on the Oregon 

Coast Range. Northwest Science. 70:3:213-222.

Hickman, J.C. (editor). 1993. The Jepson manual higher plants 

of California. University of California Press, Berkley, CA.

Hitchcock, A. and C.L. Cronquist. 1973, 9th printing 1994. 

Flora of the Pacific Northwest: An illustrated manual. 

University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.

Huffman, D.W., and J.C. Tappeiner. 1997. Clonal expansion 

and seedling recruitment of Oregon grape (Berberis 

nervosa) in Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests: 

comparisons with salal (Gaultheria shallon). Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research 27:1788-1793.

Ice, G.G., J. Light, and M. Reiter. 2004. Use of natural 

temperature patterns to identify achievable stream 

temperature criteria for forest streams. Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 19(4): 252-259.

IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. 

Global Amphibian Assessment. <www.globalamphibians.

org>. Accessed October 15, 2004.

Klinka, K., H.Y.H. Chen, Q.L. Wang, and L. de Montigny. 

1996. Forest canopies and their influence on understory 

vegetation in early-seral stands on West Vancouver Island. 

Northwest Science 70:193-200.

Kruskal, J.B. 1964. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a 

numerical method. Psychometrica 29:115-129.

Landsberg, J.J. 1986. Physiological Ecology of Forest 

Production. Academic Press. London. 198 pp.

Lehmkuhl, J.F. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1991. Forest fragmentation 

in the Pacific Northwest and its potential effects on wildlife. 

In: Ruggiero, L.F.; K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, M.H. Huff, 

(tech. coords.) Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged 

Douglas-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Report. PNW-GTR-285. 

Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. pp. 35-46.

Lindh, B.C., and P.S. Muir. 2004. Understory vegetation 

in young Douglas-fir forests: Does thinning help restore 

old-growth composition? Forest Ecology and Management 

192:285-296.

Ludwig, J.A. and J.F. Reynolds. 1988. Statistical Ecology. 

John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. 337 pp.

Mack, R.N., D. Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, 

M. Clout, and F.A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, 

epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological 

Applications 10:689-710.

Marshall, D.D. and R.O. Curtis. 2002. Levels-of-growingstock cooperative study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 15-

Hoskins: 1963-1998. USDA Forest Service Research 

Paper PNW-RP-537. Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, Oregon.

Marshall, D.B., M. Chilcote, and H. Weeks. 1992. Sensitive 

vertebrates of Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife.

Literature Cited  53
Martens, S.N., S.L. Ustin, and R. Rousseau. 1993. Estimation 

of tree canopy leaf area index by gap fraction analysis. 

Forest Ecology and Management 61: 91-108.

Mather, P.M. 1976. Computational methods of multivariate 

analysis in physical geography. J. Wiley and Sons, London.

McComb, W.C., T.A. Spies, and W.H. Emmingham. 1993. 

Douglas-fir forests: managing for timber and mature-forest 

habitat. Journal of Forestry 91:31-42.

McCune, B. and M.J. Mefford. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate 

Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 4.0 MjM Software, 

Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USA.

Meehan, W.R., ed. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland 

management on salmonid fishes and their habitat. American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. 750 p.

Messier, C., and A.K. Mitchell. 1994. Effects of thinning 

in a 43-year-old Douglas-fir stand on above-and belowground biomass allocation and leaf structure of understory 

Gaultheria shallon. Forest Ecology and Management 

68:263-271.

Mielke, P.W., Jr. 1984. Meteorological applications of 

permutation techniques based on distance functions. In P.R. 

Krishnaiah and P.K. Sen (eds.), Handbook of Statistics, 

vol. 4: 813-830. Elsevier Science Publishers.

Miller, R.E. and R.L. Williamson. 1974. Dominant Douglasfir respond to fertilizing and thinning in Southwest Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service Research Note RN-PNW-216. Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Minore, D. and H.G. Weatherly. 1994. Riparian trees, shrubs, 

and forest regeneration in the coastal mountains of Oregon. 

New Forests 8:249-263.

Moore, M.R., and J.L. Vankat. 1986. Responses of the herb 

layer to the gap dynamics of a mature beech-maple forest. 

American Midland Naturalist 115:336-347.

Muir, P.S., R.S. Mattingly, J.C. Tappeiner, J.D. Bailey, W.E. 

Elliott, J.C. Hagar, J.C. Miller, E.B. Peterson, and E.E. 

Starkey. 2002. Managing for biodiversity in young Douglasfir forests of western Oregon. USDI. U.S. Geological 

Survey Biological Science Report. USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-

0006.

Naiman, R.J, T.J. Beechie, L.E. Benda, D.R. Berg, P.A. 

Bisson, L.H. MacDonald, M.D. O’Connor, P.L. Olson, and 

E.A. Steel. 1992. Fundamental elements of ecologically 

healthy watersheds in the Pacific Northwest coastal 

ecoregion. In: Naiman, R.J. (ed.) Watershed Management: 

Balancing Sustainabilty and Environmental Change. New 

York, NY: Springer-Verlag. pp. 127-188.

Nehlsen W., J.E. Williams, and J.A. Lichatowich. 1991. 

Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from 

California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries. 

16(2):4-21.

Newton, M., R. Willis, J. Walsh, E. Cole, and S. Chan. 1996. 

Enhancing riparian habitat for fish, wildlife, and timber in 

managed forests. Weed Technology 10:429-438.

Nickelson, T.E., J.W. Nicholas, A.M. McGie, R.B. Lindsay, 

D.L. Bottom, R.J. Kaiser, and S.E. Jacobs. 1992. Status of 

anadromous salmonoids in Oregon coastal basins. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland. 83 p.

Oliver, C.D., and M.D. Murray. 1983. Stand structure, thinning 

prescriptions, and density indexes in a Douglas-fir thinning 

study, Western Washington, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research 13:126-136.

Oliver, C.H. and D.C. Larson. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. 

Update Edition. McGraw-Hill 520 p.

Olson, D., B. Hansen, L. Ellenburg, and J. Sedell. 1996. 

Riparian Buffer Component study plan: Aquatic habitats 

and vertebrate diversity. Aquatic-Lands Interactions 

Research Program, USDA Forest Service, PNW Research 

Station, Corvallis, Oregon.

Olson, D.H., S.S. Chan, and C.R. Thompson. 2002. Riparian 

buffers and thinning designs in western Oregon headwaters 

accomplish multiple resource objectives. In: Johnson, 

A.C.; R.W. Haynes, and R.A. Monserud (eds.) Congruent 

Management of Multiple Resources: Proceedings from 

the Wood Compatibility Workshop; December 5-7, 2001, 

Skamania Lodge, Stevenson, WA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-563. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 81-91.

Olson, D.H., S.S. Chan, and C.R. Thompson. 2002. Riparian 

buffers and thinning designs in western Oregon headwaters 

accomplish multiple resource objectives. In: Johnson, 

A.C., R.W. Haynes, and R.A. Monsrud, (eds.) Congruent 

Management of Multiple Resources: Proceedings from 

the Wood Compatibility Workshop; December 5-7, 2001, 

Skamania Lodge, Stevenson, WA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-563. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 27-40.

Parker, W.C., K.A. Elliott, D.C. Dey, E. Boysen, and 

S.G. Newmaster. 2001. Managing succession in conifer 

plantations: converting young red pine (Pinus resinosa 

Ait.) plantations to native forest types by thinning and 

underplanting. The Forestry Chronicles 77:721-734.

Perkins, J.P. 2000. Land cover at northern spotted owl nest 

and non-nest sites, east-central coast ranges, Oregon. M.S. 

thesis. Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State 

University, Corvallis, OR. 

54  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Poage, N.J. and J.C. Tappeiner. 2001. Long-term patterns of 

diameter and basal area growth of old-growth Douglasfir trees in western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 32:1232-1243.

Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of the Pacific 

Northwest Coast: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, 

and Alaska. Lone Pine Publishing, Redmond, Washington.

Pough, H.F., E.M. Smith, D.H. Rhodes, and A. Collazo. 

1987. The abundance of salamanders in forest stands with 

different histories of disturbance. Forest Ecology and 

Management 20: 1-9.

Qian, H., K. Klinka, and B. Sivak. 1997. Diversity of the 

understory vascular vegetation in 40-year-old and oldgrowth forest stands on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. 

Journal of Vegetation Science 8:773-780.

Raphael, M.G., P.A. Bisson, L.L.C. Jones, and A.D. Foster. 

2002. Effects of streamside forest management on the 

composition and abundance of stream and riparian fauna of 

the Olympic Peninsula. In: Johnson, A.C.; R.W. Haynes, 

and R.A. Monserud (eds.) Congruent Management 

of Multiple Resources: Proceedings from the Wood 

Compatibility Workshop; December 5-7, 2001, Skamania 

Lodge, Stevenson, WA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-563. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 27-40.

Reeves, G.H., L.E. Benda, K.M. Burnett, P.A. Bisson, 

and J.R. Sedell. 1995. A disturbance-based ecosystem 

approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats 

of evolutionary significant units of anadromous Salmonids 

in the Pacific Northwest. American Fisheries Society 

Symposium 17:334-349.

Rich, P.M. 1989. A manual for analysis of hemispherical 

canopy photography. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los 

Alamos, NM. Report LA-11733-M. 80 pp.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and M.H. Huff. 1991. 

Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. 

Gen. Tech. Report. PNW-GTR-285. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest and Range 

Experiment Station. 533 p.

Rundio, D.E. and D.H. Olson. 2001. Palatability of southern 

torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton variegatus) larvae to 

Pacific giant salamander (Dicamptodon tenebrosus) larvae. 

Journal of Herpetology 35(1): 133-136.

Rundio, David E. and Deanna H. Olson. 2003. Antipredator 

defenses of larval Pacific giant salamanders (Dicamptodon 

tenebrosus) against cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki). 

Copeia 2003(2): 392-397.

SAS Institute Inc. 2001. SAS OnlineDoc Version 8.2 

[computer program]. SAS Institute Inc., Carey, N.C.

Sheridan, C.D. and D.H. Olson. 2003. Amphibian assemblages 

in zero-order basins in the Oregon Coast Range. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research 33: 1452-1477.

Sheridan, C.D. and T.A. Spies. 2005. Vegetation-environment 

relationships in zero-order basins in coastal Oregon. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Reserach 35: 340-355.

Spies, T.A. and J.F. Franklin. 1991. The structure of natural 

young, mature, and old-growth Douglas-fir forests in 

Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-285. Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, Oregon.

Spies, T.A., R. Pabst, J. Tappeiner, and N. Poage. 1994. 

Structure, composition, and productivity of riparian 

vegetation in the Oregon Coast Range. In: The Ecology and 

Management of Oregon Coast Range Forests. A Mid-term 

COPE Symposium, March 29-31, Gleneden Beach, Oregon.

Stoddard, M.A. and J.P. Hayes. 2005. The influence of forest 

management on headwater stream amphibians at multiple 

spatial scales. Ecological Applications. 15: 811-823.

Stuart, S.N., J.S. Chanson, N.A. Cox, B.E. Young, A.S.L. 

Rodrigues, D.L. Fischman, and R.W. Waller. 2004. 

Status and trends in amphibian declines and extinctions 

worldwide. Science 306: 1783-1786.

Swanson, F.J., S.V. Gregory, J.R. Sedell, and A.G. Campbell. 

1982. Land-water interactions:the riparian zone. In: R.L. 

Edmonds (ed.) Analysis of Coniferous Forest Ecosystems 

in the Western United States. Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchinson 

Ross. 

Szaro, R.C., K.E. Severson, and D.R. Patton., eds. 1988. 

Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals 

in North America. Gen. Tech. Report. Rm-166. Ft. Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 11-22.

Tappeiner, J.C. [and many others]. 1992. Managing stands for 

northern spotted owl habitat. In: Final draft recovery plan 

for the northern spotted owl, Vol. II. Washington, D.C. U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Appendix K 

Tappeiner, J.C. and P.B. Alaback. 1989. Early establishment 

and vegetative growth of understory species in the western 

hemlock—Sitka spruce forests of southeast Alaska. 

Canadian Journal of Botany 67:318-326.

Tappeiner, J.C. and J.C. Zasada. 1993. Establishment of 

salmonberry, salal, vine maple, and bigleaf maple seedlings 

in the coastal forests of Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 23:1775-1780.

Tappeiner, J.C., D. Huffman, D. Marshall, T.A. Spies, and J.D. 

Bailey. 1997. Density, ages, and growth rates in old-growth 

and young-growth forests in coastal Oregon. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research 27:638-348.

Literature Cited  55
Thomas, J.W., M.G. Raphael, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, 

A.G. Gunderson, R.S. Holthausen, B.G. Marcot, G.H. 

Reeves, J.R. Sedell, and D.M. Solis. 1993. Viability 

assessments and management considerations for species 

associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of 

the Pacific Northwest. Portland, Oregon. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service. 523 p.

Thomas, S.C., C.B. Halpern, D.A. Falk, D.A. Liguori, and 

K.A. Austin. 1999. Plant diversity in managed forests: 

understory responses to thinning and fertilization. 

Ecological Applications 9:864-879.

Thysell, D.R., and A.B. Carey. 2000. Effects of forest 

management on understory and overstory vegetation: 

a retrospective study. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-488. Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, Oregon.

Thysell, D.R., and A.B. Carey. 2001. Manipulation of density 

of Pseudotsuga menziesii canopies: preliminary effects on 

understory vegetation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 

31:1513-1525.

Tucker, G.F. and W.H. Emmingham. 1977. Morphological 

changes in leaves of residual western hemlock after clear 

and shelterwood cutting. Forest Science 23:195-203.

Tucker, G.F., T.M. Hinckley, J.W. Leverenz, and S.M. Jiang. 

1987. Adjustments of foliar morphology in the acclimation 

of understory Pacific silver fir following clearcutting. Forest 

Ecology and Management 21:249-268.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department 

of Interior. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an 

ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of 

the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 

[FEMAT]. U.S.GPO 1993-793-071. On file with: Regional 

Ecosystem Office, 333 SW 1st Ave., Portland, OR, 97028, 

U.S.A.

USDA and USDI. 1994. Record of decision for amendment 

to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

planning documents within the range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl. Standards and guidelines for management of 

habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related 

species within the range of the northern spotted owl. 

U.S.G.P.O.:1994 - 589-111/00001 Region No. 10.

verHoef, J.M. 1996. Parametric empirical Bayes methods for 

ecological applications. Ecol. Appl. 6(4):1047-1055. 

Welsh, H.H., Jr. 1990. Relictual amphibians and old-growth 

forests. Conservation Biology 4: 309-319.

Welsh, H.H., Jr. and S. Droege. 2001. A case for using 

plethodontid salamanders for monitoring biodiversity 

and ecosystem integrity of North American forests. 

Conservation Biology 15: 558-569.

Wessell, S. 2005. Low-mobility species assemblages in 

managed forests of western Oregon: biodiversity in leave 

islands, thinned, and unthinned forests. M.S. Thesis. Oregon 

State University.

Wessell, S.J. 2005. Biodiversity in managed forests of western 

Oregon: Species assemblages in leave islands, thinned, and 

unthinned forests. Master’s Thesis, Oregon State University. 

161 p.

Winter, L.E., L.B. Brubaker, J. F. Franklin, E.A. Miller, and 

D.Q. DeWitt. 2002. Initiation of an old-growth Douglas-fir 

stand in the Pacific Northwest: a reconstruction from treering records. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32:1039-

1056.

56  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Appendixes

Appendix A. BLM Oregon State Office Directive IM OR-93-145

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Oregon State Office

P.O. Box 2965 (1300 N.E. 44th Ave.)

Portland, Oregon 97208

In Reply Refer to:

5700 (931.6)

June 25, 1993

Instruction Memorandum No. OR—93—145

Expires 9/30/94

To: DMs: Coos Bay, Eugene, Lakeview, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem

From: State Director

Subject: Silviculture System Experiments - Co-op Unit Project

The Bureau of Land Management is implementing studies of silvicultural systems that will produce old-growth 

characteristics on selected land uses as quickly as possible. These plans are part of the adaptive management 

found in the Resource Management Plans. As part of the studies, each District will potentially provide one or 

more areas in which to carry out these experiments.

Initial installations are to serve as demonstrations and trials for BLM resource specialists and for our publics in 

order to learn and demonstrate our ability to implement this type of stand management, and to verify that they 

are an adequate means of attaining the desired objectives of ecosystem-based management.

Attached is a study plan for an experiment in density management of forest stands. This will be a cooperative 

effort coordinated jointly by the Oregon State Office and the Co-op Unit. Projects will be initiated on a province 

basis (Cascade, Coastal, and Klamath) with cross-District planning/implementation teams. We are asking each 

District to select representatives for determining potential locations and for the coordination of these studies.

The first study area is projected for the Cascade Province, and we plan to coordinate with the U.S. Forest Service 

to sample stands across the province. Implementation of study projects is expected to occur in the fall of 1993. 

Similar studies are planned for “adaptive areas” in the Coastal and Klamath Provinces laser in FY 1994.

Appendixes  57
We realize there are many issues involved in the location of the study sites in the Cascade Province and hope to 

begin planning the process now, so that units can be located and implemented in early FY 1994.

The Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, and Medford Districts should each designate a wildlife biologist and a 

silviculturist to attend a meeting to discuss the Cascade Province project. The meeting is scheduled for July 21, 

1993, at 9:00 a.m. in the Willamette Room of the Eugene District Office. Please give the names of your district’s 

representatives to Larry Larsen (OR-931.6) at (503) 280-7080.

A research ecologist from the Co-op Unit will be available to help plan the integration of studies and to locate 

study sites.

 

/s/ Elaine Y. Zielinski

Elaine Y. Zielinski

Deputy State Director for

Lands and Renewable Resources

58  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Appendix B. BLM Oregon State Office Directive IB OR-94-317

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Oregon State Office

P.O. Box 2965 (1300 N.E. 44th Ave.)

Portland, Oregon 97208

March 29, 1994

In Reply Refer to:

5600 (936)(931.6)

Information Bulletin No. OR-94- 317

To: District Managers: Coos Bay, Eugene, Lakeview, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem

From: State Director

Subject: Density Management Study - National Biological Survey/BLM Project

As of November 14, 1993, our Cooperative Research Unit based at Oregon State University in Corvallis was 

absorbed into the National Biological Survey (NBS). Most of the personnel who formerly worked for OR-936 

now work for the NBS. This change will not affect the status of existing cooperative agreements, including the 

Density Management Study now in progress.

The Density Management Study was formerly known as the “Silvicultural Systems Experiment.” This study 

provides us with the opportunity to test the use of alternative silvicultural systems to accelerate the development 

of old-growth characteristics in young forest stands. Procedures for monitoring the response of botanical, 

wildlife, and riparian resources to the various silvicultural treatments will be tested; thereby providing a basis 

for adaptive management. Similar studies have been started in other parts of the Pacific Northwest.

The study is being initiated in the Cascades Province because its forest management picture is less complex than 

that of either the Coast Range or Klamath Province. Site selection for the first blocks of treatment replications 

in even-aged, 50-year-old stands is nearly complete. Two 200-acre study blocks will be the primary focus for FY 

1994 - one each in the Salem and Eugene Districts.

We will also begin the process of expanding the study to the rest of the westside Districts. NBS personnel will 

look along the Coos Bay/Roseburg District boundary for a suitable group of study sites. Both Districts will have 

a study block identified, and these two sites will be the initial focus for the study in the Coast Range Province. A 

list of site selection criteria for the Coast Range Province is attached.

OSO and NBS personnel would like to screen each District’s timber sale plan for possible study sites. They will 

work with the District Silviculturist to get the necessary information. Potential study sites may be at a point in 

the timber sale planning process where it is not too late to select them for the study. This would not necessarily 

delay implementation of a given sale.

Appendixes  59
Study blocks will be replicated across the landscape in groups of three or more, providing as much overlap 

and replication among Districts or Resource Areas (RAs) as possible. The study design for the first group 

of Cascades Province installations is being developed, and the same design is projected for use in the Coast 

Range Province. The design will be modified as needed as the study is expanded to include older stands, other 

plant associations or habitat types, and as we move into other Land Use Allocations such as Late Successional 

Reserves or Adaptive Management Areas.

Both the study design and the timeline for implementation will need to be different for the Klamath Province, 

and Medford District is preparing a study proposal.

Each RA containing a project area selected for the study will need to identify a silviculture forester to work with 

NBS personnel as needed. These people do not need to be formally designated until that time.

Before these sales are harvested, permanent understory vegetation monitoring plots will be installed by NBS 

personnel. These plots will be remeasured by RA personnel in each of the first five years following treatment, 

and every five years thereafter. Our regular stand exam will be used to track the development of the overstory 

vegetation, and the RAs will do this in years 1 and 5 following treatment, and every five years thereafter. 

The planting of seedlings to create another canopy layer will be a standard practice, and this will also be the 

responsibility of the RAs. Each RA with a project area will require about 4 workmonths of work in years 1 and 

5 following treatment, with 2 workmonths being needed in years 2-4.

NBS personnel will soon begin working with the appropriate people to identify potential study blocks along 

the Coos Bay/Roseburg boundary. At the same time, layout of the Salem and Eugene blocks is beginning; with 

marking of these two blocks planned for this summer. NBS personnel will assist in the actual marking of these 

sales.

The OSO will coordinate the rate of development of this study so that a positive momentum is maintained. 

NBS personnel intend to accommodate as many RAs with prospective density management sales-as time and 

logistics allow, but they can only handle a few project areas in this early phase of implementation. Limiting the 

number of project areas will help assure a credible and high-quality product.

Management recognizes that research projects such as this study represent an important opportunity to 

demonstrate to managers, resource specialists, and our various interested publics that we can implement 

ecosystem-based stand management objectives as described in our various draft District RMPs and the Forest 

Plan. Your continued cooperation is appreciated.

Please direct any questions/comments/feedback to Charley Thompson at 280-7076 in Portland or John Tappeiner 

at 750-7359 in Corvallis.

/s/ Terry Nichols

Acting Associate Director

60 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
In Reply Refer to:

5610 (OR-933) P

August 12, 2005

EMS TRANSMISSION 8/16/2005

Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2005-083

Expires: 9/30/2006

To: District Managers: Coos Bay, Eugene, Roseburg, Salem

From: State Director, Oregon/Washington

Subject: Density Management Studies

Purpose: This Instruction Memorandum provides direction for the next phase of the Density

Management and Riparian Buffer Study (DMS).

Policy/Action: To begin out-year planning to implement the next phase of the DMS according

to the revised DMS Study Plan. The DMS Site Coordinator for each site should work with the

local field manager and employees responsible for the necessary contract work to ensure that this

schedule can be met and to resolve difficulties. The DMS Study Coordinator should be kept

informed and involved as necessary to help keep necessary actions on schedule.

Timeframe: The schedule for on-the-ground treatment implementation is as follows:

Site Name District Implementation

Year

Site Coordinator

Bottomline Eugene 2009 Peter O’Toole/Shami Premdas

OM Hubbard Roseburg 2009 Craig Kintop

Keel Mountain Salem 2009 Charley Thompson

Sand Creek Salem 2009 Hugh Snook

Callahan Creek Salem 2009 Hugh Snook

North Soup Coos Bay 2010 Frank Price

Little Wolf Roseburg 2010 Craig Kintop

Blue Retro Coos Bay 2010 Frank Price

Green Peak Salem 2011 Hugh Snook

Ten High Eugene 2011 Peter O’Toole/Shami Premdas

Delph Creek Salem 2011 Charley Thompson

Perkins Creek Eugene 2011 Peter O’Toole/Shami Premdas

United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Oregon State Office

P.O. Box 2965

Portland, Oregon 97208

Appendix C. BLM Oregon State Office Directive IM OR-05-083

United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Oregon State Office

P.O. Box 2965

Portland, Oregon 97208

Appendixes  61
2

NOTE: Implementation year means the year that the activity happens on the ground. Every

effort should be made to ensure the DMS units are treated in the one-year window assigned

above.

Budget Impact: Funding to support contract development and implementation for the next

round of treatments will come out of normal operating budgets, and achievements will contribute

to normal accomplishment reporting. The Study Coordinator and other individuals in the State

Office are evaluating the feasibility of funding post-treatment monitoring through contract

receipts, either through stewardship contracting and/or use of the 5900 forest health funds.

Additional funding of post-treatment monitoring may be needed and will be funded out of 6320,

6334, and/or 6310 subactivities, as has been the case for the last 10 years. Total funding needs

for post-treatment monitoring will range from $100,000 to $300,000 annually depending on

scheduling and partner funding contributions. Partner contributions have exceeded Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) study funding to date.

Background: Initial direction to implement the DMS was provided through two State Office

directives (Instruction Memorandum OR-93-145, Information Bulletin OR-94-317) over ten

years ago. Since then, treatments implementing the study have been completed, over a thousand

plots have been established, measurements for a wide variety of responses have been conducted,

initial results have been reported, and a wide range of outreach and education activities have

been conducted on DMS sites or with DMS information. Several manuscripts officially

reporting five-year post-treatment results are scheduled for publication within the year. A strong

partnership among Pacific Northwest Research Station, Oregon State University, US Geological

Survey, and the BLM has supported these accomplishments.

An extensive effort was made over the past year to develop a revised DMS Study Plan (Cissel et

al. in review) to address key information needs of the BLM. Proposal development steps

included:

x DMS scientists and site coordinators developed initial ideas for the revised study plan

and reviewed proposals in the field

x Revised study plan was reviewed and discussed with a wide range of field practitioners

and managers at the DMS Workshop and Field Trips in June, 2004

x The DMS Study Coordinator reviewed the proposal with affected field managers

x Revised study plan proposal was distributed to westside field units for review

x Revised proposal was reviewed and approved by the interagency DMS Steering

Committee (includes BLM district manager and branch chief)

The BLM State Office leadership and Pacific Northwest Research Station Leadership Team were

briefed and concurred on study plans and direction.

Manual/Handbook Sections Affected: None

Coordination: Development of these instructions was coordinated with District Management,

DMS Coordinators, and OR-930 Management and staff.

62  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
3

Contact: Contact the DMS Study Coordinator John Cissel, at (541) 683-6410 with questions, or

for a copy of the revised study plan.

Districts with Unions are reminded to notify their unions of this Instruction Memorandum and

satisfy any bargaining obligations before implementation. Your servicing Human Resources

Office or Labor Relations Specialist can provide you assistance in this matter.

Signed by

Kathy Eaton

Acting Associate Director

Authenticated by

Mary O’Leary

Management Assistant

Appendixes  63
Appendix D. Final Initial Study Plan

U. S. Bureau of Land Management - Density Management Studies

Prepared by John Tappeiner and Charley Thompson

February 3, 2000

Table of Contents

Page

PART I - INTRODUCTION

Summary............................................................................................................... 1

Past Research and New Information and Approaches Needed............................. 2

Other Related Studies ........................................................................................... 3

PART II - DENSITY MANAGEMENT STUDY PLAN

Objectives.............................................................................................................. 6

Desired Future Condition at Age 120-150 Years.................................................. 6

Study Design and Analysis of Results................................................................... 7

Treatments to Achieve Desired Future Conditions............................................... 8

Stand Treatments ................................................................................................................... 8

Riparian Zones....................................................................................................................... 9

Marking Guidelines............................................................................................................... 10

Reserve Areas........................................................................................................................ 10

Regeneration .......................................................................................................................... 11

Future Treatments.................................................................................................................. 11

Rethinning............................................................................................................. 12

Vegetation Variables.............................................................................................. 13

Monitoring Plot Installation and Measurement 14

64  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
PART I — INTRODUCTION

Summary

This is a plan for an adaptive study of silvicultural systems 

that will be used under the new U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Resource Management Plans. These 

plans call for Density Management for some stands to achieve 

old-growth characteristics such as large trees and multiple 

understory layers as quickly as possible. Other stands are 

to be managed primarily for wood production, while still 

maintaining large conifers and hardwoods, in them in order to 

provide structure and habitat for a variety of wildlife species.

These silvicultural systems differ in two major respects from 

the even-age systems that are commonly used in western 

Oregon forests. They require: (a) the regeneration of conifers 

and hardwood species beneath an overstory of conifers and/or 

hardwoods; and (b) the management of overstory density to 

grow large trees, provide snags and logs on the forest floor, 

and to regulate canopy density so that understory conifers 

will survive and grow. These silvicultural systems are new 

for western Oregon forests. There is, however, considerable 

information from research and implementation programs about 

thinning conifer stands and conifer regeneration that provide a 

basis for the work outlined here.

The purpose of this plan is to outline study objectives and 

protocols to test these new silvicultural systems. There 

are thousands of acres of stands 30 to 70 years old in the 

Salem and Eugene BLM Districts for which thinning and 

density management are appropriate. In addition, there 

are many more thousands of acres of plantations less than 

30 years old in these Districts and in Roseburg and Coos 

Bay Districts as well. There is significant variation in forest 

species composition throughout the forests on these Districts. 

Therefore response to these systems will need to be monitored 

carefully throughout the forests on BLM lands in western 

Oregon. It will be necessary to insure silviculture systems 

being studied are appropriate given the ecosystem variables 

and specific management objectives for each District. 

Consequently, particular studies may be designed for each 

District but the overriding objective is to provide as much 

overlap and replication among Districts or Resource Areas as 

possible.

In order to understand how these systems will work in 

the management of forest lands, it is important to test 

them operationally. This means that treatments should be 

established as part of management programs, and that they 

be installed on large tracts of land, not uniform research 

plots. Therefore, there is likely to be considerable variation 

among study sites and treatment replications. Nevertheless, 

an experimental approach and scientific rigor is needed to 

evaluate these systems across all BLM lands, if meaningful 

inferences are to be drawn from the results, and if the results 

are to provide a basis for adaptive management.

In this study, we will establish study sites on which the 

response of a range of taxa to stand density management can 

be evaluated. In this plan, we focus on the response of vascular 

plants to density management. Studies on other species will be 

established under separate study plans.

Past Research and New Information and 

Approaches Needed

There is considerable published information and practical 

experience on which to base these new silvicultural 

prescriptions. Much of the literature has been reviewed 

recently for the Final Recovery Plan for the Northern 

Spotted Owl (U.S.D.I., Tappeiner et al., 1992). The density 

management prescriptions called for in RMPs are similar 

to those suggested for managing stands to produce spotted 

owl habitat in the Final Draft Recovery Plan. Briefly, there 

has been considerable research on the effects of thinning 

on the growth and yield of Douglas-fir and hemlock stands 

(King, 1986; Ruth and Harris, 1979). This research includes 

response of very young stands (Reukema, 1975), stands over 

100 years of age (Williamson, 1982), and a rather thorough 

study in stands from about 25 through 50 years of age (Curtis 

and Marshall, 1986; Marshall et al., 1992). These studies all 

show that Douglas-fir trees respond well to thinning and that 

they can be grown at a wide range of densities. For example, 

the levels of growing stock studies documents stand growth 

at stocking levels ranging from 50 to 400+ trees per acre. 

They also indicate that stands grown at these densities are 

not prone to windthrow, although assessing how thinning 

affects windthrow was not one of the objectives of the studies, 

and windthrow will likely vary from site to site. See the 

Final Recovery Plan for a more thorough review of research 

(U.S.D.I., Tappeiner et al., 1992).

Artificial regeneration methods for reforesting clearcuts with 

Douglas-fir have been well researched. There are successful 

procedures in place for nursery production of seedlings, site 

preparation, planting, shrub and herb control, and protection 

from wildlife damage (Cleary et al., 1978, Hobbs et al., 

1992). This research and management experience strongly 

suggests that if healthy seedlings are properly planted, they 

will survive and grow. However, control of herbs and shrubs is 

often needed to insure satisfactory tree growth and plantation 

establishment. Control of competition is often of more concern 

on dry sites in southwestern Oregon than on moister sites to 

the north.

Appendixes  65
What remains is to combine these two areas of information 

and experience into silviculture systems to produce or 

maintain structures that provide for wildlife habitat, and for 

other resources while producing wood. Thus, as mentioned 

above, stand density management or thinning has the objective 

of not only producing large trees, snags, and wood volume, 

but also enabling the establishment of multiple layers of trees, 

shrubs, and herbs in the understory. Reforestation practices 

must insure seedlings produced in nurseries or advanced 

natural regeneration will survive and grow beneath larger 

trees. These practices must take into account competition to 

seedlings from both understory species and overstory trees. 

It is also anticipated that seedlings in an understory may be 

more susceptible to animal damage than seedlings growing in 

clearcuts since they might be less vigorous and growing more 

slowly.

Other aspects of the studies outlined here are different from 

past thinning and regeneration studies. They should be done 

on fairly large tracts (30 to 50+ acres) so that wildlife use of 

the different stand management systems can be evaluated. 

Adequate tree response data can be obtained from small, wellmonitored plots (0.2+ acres), but entire stands on a variety of 

sites are needed to evaluate response of multiple resources and 

to evaluate costs and implementation of these new systems.

Finally, these studies should provide a basis for monitoring 

and adaptive management. Scientists from the Biological 

Resources Division (BRD) of the U.S. Geological Survey 

will play the lead role in analyzing and interpreting initial 

results; they are based at the Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem 

Science Center (FRESC) in Corvallis, OR. Personnel from 

Districts, Resource Areas, the Pacific Northwest Research 

Station (PNW), Oregon State University (OSU), and other 

agencies should collaborate in these studies. Once these 

systems are begun, they should provide a basis for learning 

how to monitor new stand and landscape management systems 

and thus proceed with adaptive management. They also should 

provide the basis for studying a variety of ecosystems and 

management variables, such as site productivity, root disease 

effects, wildlife response, economics, etc.

Other Related Studies

There are other studies proposed or underway that are related 

to the work proposed here and will contribute to development 

of the silvicultural systems in the RMP. See Hunter (1995) for 

a recent summary of related studies. Following are examples 

of studies of active management of trees and understory 

vegetation.

1. Comparison of wildlife communities and tree response 

among three silvicultural systems in the east-central Coast 

Range, Oregon - OSU McDonald-Dunn Research Forest

An integrated study documenting the response of vegetation, 

wildlife and conifer regeneration in three different systems: 

(a) clearcutting with 2 trees/acre retained; (b) two-story stand 

development - 8 to 12 trees/acre left at a uniform spacing after 

harvest; natural regeneration and planted seedlings; (c) “group 

selection or group shelterwood” - one-third of the stand is 

being regenerated in 1/2-acre openings; and (d) no treatment. 

Study installed beginning in 1991 in 120-year-old Douglas-fir.

2. Young stand thinning and diversity study - Willamette 

National Forest

Documenting vegetation, wildlife and conifer 

regeneration response to: (a) no treatment; (b) spacing to 

100-120 trees/acre; (c) wide spacing of 50 trees/acre and 

underplanting; (d) thinning to 100-120 trees/acre plus 

1/2-acre openings planted with conifer seedlings. Study 

established in 30-40-year-old Douglas-fir plantations or 

naturally regenerated stands; bird and small mammal 

monitoring was completed prior to treatment. Logging is 

scheduled for 1993 and 1994. Each treatment to include 

50+ acres.

3. Commercial thinning and understory regeneration in 

young western hemlock - Siuslaw National Forest-OSU

Stand densities or stocking levels of 30-year old hemlock 

range from about 30 trees per acre to an uncut control. 

Natural regeneration and planted seedlings will be 

monitored. Treatment units about 5 acres.

4. OSU and the Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science 

Center - Stand Reconstruction

Stands on BLM lands that have been thinned 10–30 years 

previously, unthinned stands, and old-growth stands will 

be inventoried to compare overstory stand structure, 

species composition, and growth rates. The species 

composition, density, and growth of understory trees, 

shrubs, and herbs also will be measured. Information 

from this work will help design future stand management 

systems and predict response of understory trees and 

shrubs and overstory trees in stands whose canopy has 

been regulated by commercial thinning. Work began in 

June 1993.

5. OSU and Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science 

Center - Understory Regeneration

A study to determine how to establish a conifer 

understory by planting. Douglas-fir, western hemlock, 

grand fir, and western redcedar will be planted under a 

range of overstory densities with and without vegetation 

control and protection from animal damage. Study to be 

conducted on east and west Coast Range sites. Overstory 

thinning done fall 1993, planting done spring 1994.

66  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
6. A Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options 

(DEMO) - Gifford Pinchot and Umpqua National Forests, 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources

This study will evaluate various silvicultural systems 

designed to sustain or develop late-successional 

forest attributes in managed forest ecosystems. To be 

implemented by the USFS and Washington DNR in 

conjunction with PNW and the Ecological Framework 

for Management Partners, which includes the USFS, 

OSU, the Ecosystem Research Group at the University 

of Washington, the Cascade Center for Ecosystem 

Management, and the Aerial Forest Management 

Foundation. Six treatments representing the full range 

of green-tree retention levels will be implemented. The 

biological and operational feasibility of the various 

green-tree retention designs will be evaluated, as will their 

economic and social acceptability.

7. Influence of commercial thinning intensity on stand 

structure and wildlife abundance. Two stand densities 

and a control on 60+ acre sites. In the Coast Range near 

Tillamook, OR - COPE and Oregon Department of 

Forestry.

8. Olympic habitat development study. Variable density 

treatments on small patches 0.1 to 0.5 acre to create 

variable stand structures. Installed on six sites on the 

Olympic Peninsula.

These studies will all provide information that will help with 

the design and implementation of the prescriptions called for 

in the RMPs. However, they alone will not provide sufficient 

information for the following reasons:

1. The sites studied do not adequately represent those 

managed by BLM, especially the numerous young 

stands. Therefore, they will not provide a basis for BLM 

monitoring and adaptive management.

2. They are not exactly compatible with prescriptions called 

for by the RMPs. For example, only treatment (2) in study 

one is similar to a GFMA prescription. But it includes 

only one leave tree number and pattern.

3. Plot or stand size is often not large enough to provide a 

basis for sampling wildlife populations.

4. They do not represent the planning analysis, prescriptions, 

and implementation skills of BLM personnel and are being 

implemented on research forests or on specially selected 

sites.

PART II — DENSITY MANAGEMENT 

STUDY PLAN

Objectives

1. General Scientific Objectives

– Test the working hypothesis that “regulation of stand 

density will enhance stand structural and species 

diversity.”

– Evaluate several density management regimes to 

enhance species diversity as described in the proposed 

action. Test the null hypothesis that among the regimes 

there are no differences in structural characteristics and 

species diversity within 5, 10, or 15+ years following 

treatment.

– Provide a basis and experimental design for evaluating 

the response of various taxa to density management.

2. Management Objectives

– Begin to implement the density management program 

called for in the BLM’s Resource Management Plans 

and the Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest 

Plan.

– Demonstrate the immediate and long-term effects of 

density management.

– Learn to integrate riparian and upland stand 

management prescriptions to achieve multiple species/

stand structure objectives.

– Develop a basis for learning how to monitor 

populations of plants and animals.

Desired Future Condition at Age 120-150 Years

The following are the future stand goals that the treatments 

are intended to produce. They are taken from Spies and 

Franklin (1991), and represent a wide range of old-growth 

stand characteristics. Wherever possible, we will measure the 

characteristics of nearby old-growth stands and use them to 

guide stand development. The initial treatments will be similar 

for all stands, however.

Appendixes  67
1. Large green trees to be developed from the current stand

– 20 (range 10–30) trees/acre greater than 30” DBH

– 4 (range 2-6) trees per acre greater that 50” DBH

– 1 tree per acre greater than 50” DBH - with a broken 

top

2. Enhancement of species and structural diversity — this 

will be done through thinning the current stand, reserving 

the minor species that are already present, and by 

regenerating conifers and other plants in the understory.

– 30 (range 25–35) trees/acre between 15 and 30” 

DBH. These trees would be a mixture of hardwoods, 

Douglas-fir, western redcedar, and western hemlock. 

They would include trees currently in the stand plus 

trees regenerated in the understory.

– 150 (range 100–200) tree/acre less than 15” DBH. 

If natural regeneration is not present, one to three 

cohorts of a mixture of hemlock and cedar will be 

underplanted.

3. Snags

– 10 (range 8-12) snags/acre with one-half greater than 

25” DBH and one-half from 10 to 25” DBH. All decay 

classes would be represented.

4. Logs on the forest floor

– 900 linear feet of well-dispersed down logs per acre

– 1/3 of the logs would be 24” DBH or greater

– 2/3 of the logs would be 10-24” DBH

– All decay classes would be represented.

Study Design and Analysis of Results

The study will be replicated in blocks consisting of a control 

and three density management treatments. To the extent 

possible, each block will have a uniform forest cover of 

about 200 acres, and treatments will be assigned randomly 

to 50-acre parcels. Large treatment units are necessary in 

order to study the response of some wildlife populations to 

density management, and to evaluate the effects of operational 

treatments on stand structure. Within a block, the treatment 

units because of their size generally will not be homogeneous 

or similar. For example, some will include streams and 

riparian buffers; others will include large trees from the 

previous stand; and understory vegetation will vary among and 

within treatment units. Nevertheless, our experience with stand 

reconstruction work in thinned, unthinned, and old-growth 

stands suggests the treatment effects on overstory trees and 

understory vegetation can be analyzed using regression to 

relate understory development to overstory density, and 

using analysis of variance with a block design to compare 

differences among treatments.

Analysis of the response of individual plant species such as 

native shrubs and herbs as well as lichens and bryophytes 

may be more difficult to assess, and less amenable to 

rigorous statistical analysis. These species are not likely to be 

uniformly distributed throughout blocks, among blocks, or 

within stands. Therefore, we will have to do analyses on a siteby-site basis using appropriate techniques among treatments 

and blocks. In some cases, this may mean simply reporting 

the presence or absence, relative abundance, or means and 

standard errors. In other cases, testing for significant treatment 

effects may be possible.

The experience gained by monitoring these density 

management studies can be directly applied to the monitoring 

and adaptive management called for in the Northwest Forest 

Plan. By replicating density management studies across many 

sites and systematically monitoring for “survey and manage” 

species, riparian zone characteristics, and stand growth and 

structure development, we expect to be able to document the 

responses of a range of taxa to density management.

Treatments to Achieve Desired Future 

Conditions

1. Stand Treatments

See figure 1 and table 1 in the appendix for the projected 

effects of these treatments on the size of overstory trees.

High density — vertical structural development only

– About 70–75% of the stand will be thinned to a density 

of 120 TPA to provide a moderate rate of understory 

development and growth in tree diameter.

Moderate density (with openings) - vertical structure and 

some horizontal structure

– About 60-65% of the stand will be thinned to a density 

of 80 TPA.

– About 10% of the stand will consist of well-dispersed 

circular patch cuts ranging from 0.25 - 1.0 acre in size 

(see below)

Variable density - rapid, “maximum” development of 

vertical and horizontal structure

– A highly variable (light to heavy) opening of the 

canopy that will provide an opportunity for the most 

rapid development of species and structural diversity.

68  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
– Each thinning will be implemented in three or more 

areas of about the same size:

 –10% of the stand will be thinned to a density of 40 

TPA

–25–30% of the stand will receive the high density 

treatment (120 TPA left)

–25–30% of the stand will receive the moderate 

density treatment (80 TPA left)

–	 in 10% of the stand there will be well-dispersed 

circular openings ranging from 0.25 to 1.0 acre in size 

(see below)

The complement of patch cuts to be implemented in the 

moderate and variable density treatments is as follows:

3 or more 0.25-acre patches (59-ft radius) = 0.75 acre

3 or more 0.5-acre patches (83-ft radius) = 1.5 acres

3 or more 1-acre patches (118-ft radius) = 3 acres

For example, 5.25 acres or 10.5% of a 50-acre unit 

would be in patch cuts. They should be located in spots 

conducive to the growth of planted seedlings.

Control

– The control unit will provide a means of comparing 

stand development and species response in treated 

versus untreated stands. Stand development will occur 

slowly through such natural processes as self-thinning, 

root disease, and wind. See figure 1 to see how the 

projected diameter distributions in the control at stand 

age 120 compare with those in the treated stands.

2. Riparian Zones

Streamside treatment unit boundaries will be adjusted 

from the one- and two- site-potential tree height buffers 

set forth in the ROD, as appropriate pending the results 

of watershed analysis and environmental assessment 

development. Riparian ecologists from the AquaticLands Interaction Group of the PNW Research Station 

in Corvallis, OR have described two additional buffer 

widths that they are examining with the Riparian Buffer 

Component of the Density Management Study. These are:

Variable-width: varies with ecological breaks of 

vegetation (composition, age) and slope character 

(stability, gradient). Minimum width is 50 feet, measured 

as slope distance from the edges of the active channel, to 

ensure shading and wood/litter input to the stream.

Streamside retention: maintains trees directly 

contributing to streambank stability and overhead shading. 

A streamside tree is reserved if a branch crosses a plane 

extending vertically from an edge of the active channel. 

Generally, trees within 20-30 feet of the stream are 

considered for retention.

At some sites, these same PNW riparian ecologists will 

install studies to evaluate the effects of thinning within 

Riparian Reserves on the populations and habitats of 

aquatic-dependent species such as fish and amphibians. 

PNW personnel will work directly with the Resource Area 

as riparian treatment boundaries are located on the ground 

during sale layout. For study sites or treatment units 

where PNW activity is absent, the local Interdisciplinary 

Team will employ either the variable-width or streamside 

retention concept when adjusting the buffer widths, 

consistent with the outcome of the watershed analysis.

3. Marking Guidelines

Marking criteria will be developed for each study block. 

Following are general criteria that may be modified for a 

given block:

– thinning will generally be “from below.” Leaving 

the largest trees will result in a somewhat clumpy 

distribution of overstory trees.

– retain all hardwoods.

– retain conifers that are minor species for that stand.

– retain all understory conifers less than 5.0 inches in 

diameter.

– retain all residual overstory trees from the previous oldgrowth stand.

– retain all existing large down logs and snags from trees 

in the previous stand.

– retain limby/wolf trees from all canopy levels.

– select larger trees on the margins of root disease centers 

to thin around for coarse woody debris recruitment.

– maintain or enhance species diversity. Vary spacing or 

marking guidelines as needed to retain desired species 

or even to retain a single tree.

4. Reserve Areas

There will be aggregated green tree retention or “leave 

islands” in each of the thinning treatments. They help 

increase horizontal structural diversity and provide 

suitable microclimates for many organisms. They may 

be located around known populations of certain plant 

species, and can be used with adjacent thinned areas to 

determine how species respond to the direct effects of 

overstory thinning.

Appendixes  69
– About 20-30% of the area will be left untreated, with 

riparian reserve acres contributing to this component. 

Generally, circular leave islands will be left as follows:

– 3 or more .25-acre areas (59-ft radius) = 0.75 acre

– 3 or more .5-acre areas (83-ft radius) = 1.5 acres

– 3 or more 1-acre areas (118-ft radius) = 3 acres

In treatment units with low amounts of riparian reserve 

acres, we will use 2.5-acre leave islands (186-ft radius) to 

arrive at the desired percentage.

5. Regeneration

Both outplanting and natural regeneration will contribute 

to the development of additional canopy levels. As stated 

on Page 7, the stand development goal is to have about 

150 trees per acre less than 15” dbh in the understory at 

stand age 120-150.

Areas to be planted:

– all patch openings

– underplant all areas of 40 TPA in the variable density 

unit

– underplant 3 1-acre areas (circles, squares, or 

rectangles) in the moderate and high density 

treatments, and the control

The planting scheme outlined below should be used in all 

areas to be planted:

– planting at a 15 X 15 spacing will result in about 200 

TPA. Spacing may vary by 20%, i.e. from 12-18 feet.

– The planting rows may be oriented in any direction, 

although planting at right angles to the contour seems 

to make the rows easier to re-locate. One species 

should be planted per row, with no two adjacent 

rows containing the same species. To make the 

planting outcome somewhat random, we would use 

the following process when there are four species. 

Randomly assign a species to Row # 1. Then randomly 

assign any of the remaining three species to be in Row 

# 2. Then randomly assign either of the remaining two 

species to Row # 3, leaving only one species choice to 

be in Row # 4. At this point, the only species we don’t 

want in Row # 5 is whatever species was in Row # 4 

(so that no two rows of the same species are adjacent). 

Row # 5 would then be assigned any one of the species 

that were in Rows # 1, 2, or 3; etc. In like fashion, Row 

# 9 would be assigned any of the species that didn’t 

end up in Row # 8. The planters should adhere as well 

as they can to the established transects and spacing, 

regardless of existing regeneration or overstory trees.

Species to be planted in the patch openings and 

underplanted in 40 TPA: western hemlock, western 

redcedar, and Douglas-fir.

– a fourth conifer or hardwood species appropriate for 

a given site could be planted at the Resource Area’s 

option.

Species to be underplanted in 80 TPA, 120 TPA, and the 

control: western hemlock and western redcedar.

– a third conifer or hardwood species appropriate for 

a given site could be planted at the Resource Area’s 

option.

– these areas should be placed where the seedlings are 

likely to succeed, and it is preferrred that they be at 

least 50-100 feet from roads.

Site preparation, manual planting spot preparation, 

protective action such as vexar tubing, and follow-up 

stocking maintenance would occur at the Resource Area’s 

option as needed for growth and survival. To date the 

western redcedar have been tubed.

Since advanced natural regeneration has generally been 

retained in these study sites, there may be clumps of these 

trees that will need thinning in the future.

Any formal monitoring of seedling growth and survival 

after planting will be the responsibility of the BRD Unit 

in Corvallis.

6. Future Treatments

We are examining the process of stand development 

towards achieving old growth structure and species 

diversity under varying stand densities. Each treatment or 

overstory density represents a different way to achieve old 

forest characteristics.

Residual stand density in the high retention treatment will 

likely develop a level of competition that reduces vigor 

and causes suppression mortality to occur within 10-20 

years. Such a degree of competition for growing space 

will inhibit growth and slow progress towards the desired 

future condition. A similar stand development scenario 

will occur in the moderate retention treatment, but at a 

later time. Additional intermediate harvests are planned 

to maintain growth and vigor by reducing stocking in 

order to achieve structural objectives. For example, oldgrowth stands commonly have only 10-60 large trees per 

acre. The only density management prescription which 

will reduce stocking to this level, e.g. 40 trees per acre, 

is on about 10% of the study area in the variable density 

treatment. Part of the variable treatment may also be 

thinned in the future.

70 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Future thinnings and the number of trees per acre to 

be left are outlined in table 1. Potential results of these 

treatments on tree size are shown in figure 1. For example, 

the high density treatment (2) may be considered for 

additional density management in 10-20 years. The 

monitoring of overstory and understory development will 

indicate when to treat. In addition, planting or releasing 

established understory trees may be done to increase 

vertical or horizontal diversity along with these future 

thinnings.

Rethinning

Many stands on BLM and Forest Service lands have been 

thinned when they were 30 to 60+ years of age. Recent work 

by the BRD research staff at Corvallis suggests that these 

thinnings often stimulate initiation of conifer and shrub 

seedlings in the understory and development of trees with 

full crowns and large branches - all of which could lead to 

the development of old-growth characteristics. After these 

initial commercial thinnings the stand is often stocked with 

80 to 100+ trees per acre at regular spacing. Old-growth 

stands often have a variable stocking of approximately 10 to 

60 large trees per acre at irregular spacing. Thus it appears 

that rethinning may help promote old forest characteristics by 

further reducing overstory density while creating an irregular 

distribution of overstory trees. It will also promote continued 

development of 1), a second layer of conifers or hardwoods; 

2), a shrub and herb understory; and 3), fuller crowns, larger 

branches, and furrowed bark on overstory trees.

Rethinning may be done in stands that have been 

commercially thinned. It is also part of the studies on density 

management in young stands described above (table 1). As 

with the younger stands the goal is the same: development 

of old-growth characteristics while producing yields of 

commercial wood.

Treatments - will be done to enable large trees to continue 

their growth, and to promote the establishment of a multistoried stand. Thinning will be “from below,” generally 

resulting in a clumpy distribution of the 30 to 60 trees per 

acre to be left. Thinning will be heavier around clumps of 

understory conifers and hardwoods, thus promoting their 

release. Site-specific marking guidelines to be developed 

for each project area may vary from those found on P. 10. 

For example, we intend to reserve from thinning all stems 

contributing to additional canopy layers; so for each site 

we will need to set a diameter limit, below which all trees 

left undamaged by logging are reserved from thinning. 

This could be as much as 8-10 inches dbh.

Installation - where possible, it is desirable to rethin 50+ 

acres, while retaining at least 15 acres as a once-thinned 

control. These acreages will vary among sites, but at each 

study site there will be a block of a rethinned stand with a 

once-thinned control. In some cases, the unthinned control 

area from the Stand Reconstruction study can be retained 

as well. These controls need to be left intact for about 

15 years after the rethinning to allow us to get enough of a 

data set for vegetation analysis purposes.

Regeneration - one of the criteria for selecting these six 

study sites was that a significant amount of advanced 

regeneration resulted from the previous thinning. We do 

not propose to do any planting in these areas, however a 

management unit may decide to plant an unstocked area 

or introduce a species lacking in the stand. In some cases, 

it may be necessary to perform stocking control on the 

understory to maintain the growth and development of 

this canopy layer.

Vegetation Variables

The primary variable to be studied on all sites is the response 

of vegetation to density management. Studies of other species 

will be initiated on a case-by-case basis. Following are general 

outlines of the variables that should be quantified on each 

District, or set of studies.

1. Overstory tree response to density management (See 

Part III)

– subsequent growth rates of trees and stands

– cause of mortality (wind, insects, diseases, etc.)

– snag recruitment rates

2. Response of shrubs and herbs (and lichens, bryophytes, 

and fungi if possible) to overstory density, and to 

treatments controlling competition to conifer seedlings 

(See Part III)

– species composition

– cover and height

3. Effects of trees, shrubs, and herbs on conifer regeneration 

(planted; new and advanced natural regeneration)

– survival

– growth

– competition management

4. How well can these prescriptions be implemented using 

BLM procedures?

– success of prescription implementation evaluated by 

achieving designated tree and snag retention, stand 

density, low levels of damage to trees, regeneration 

survival and growth

– cost of implementation

Appendixes  71
5. Procedures for monitoring

– data collection procedures for objectives 1-4 will be 

used to develop District-wide monitoring methods

– data summary, analysis, and review for objectives 

1-4 will be used to evaluate the need for adaptive 

management

6. Other objectives will become apparent as this plan is 

reviewed and other information needs surface. These study 

sites will create opportunities for wildlife ecologists to 

evaluate the response of some wildlife species (such as 

amphibians, small mammals, and some birds) to several 

density management regimes which will have been 

replicated at least twelve times on a representative set of 

young forests on four BLM Districts. Particular studies 

and variables to measure will be decided study by study. 

For example, underburning is being considered as a part of 

stand management by some Districts or Resource Areas. 

Evaluation of underburning could be incorporated in these 

studies.

Monitoring Plot Installation and Measurement

We propose to install about 60 of the quarter-acre plots 

described below at each of the density management study 

sites. Rethinning study sites will likely need closer to 20 plots. 

The total number of plots for a given site will depend on the 

number of strata, with probably 3-6 plots per strata. Strata may 

derive from different Land Use Allocations, different thinning 

densities, and different riparian buffer widths. Four sites have 

been measured, and Kathleen Maas-Hebner of OSU Forest 

Science is doing statistical analysis of this data now, with 

results due 4/1/00.

These plots should be established and measured within two 

years following harvest, and subsequent measurements should 

occur at roughly five-year intervals. This data on vegetation 

response and stand development is essential for determining 

how well density management prescriptions such as these can 

create the desired stand structural characteristics, and will 

facilitate the use of these sites by other researchers.

The FRESC Unit in Corvallis has an ongoing commitment 

to assist and guide the BLM in analyzing this monitoring 

plot data. The FRESC Unit cannot commit to any significant 

amount of the data gathering effort, so individual Districts 

and Resource Areas will need to install and remeasure these 

plots if the monitoring component of the study is to be fully 

implemented. Some amount of State Office guidance and 

oversight is expected to continue into the foreseeable future.

Overview of Plot Design

0.25-acre fixed-radius (58.9’) plot

– record and number all live trees that are >2.0 inches dbh

– record and number all dead trees that are >10.0 inches dbh 

and are >1 foot high. This definition of a dead tree will 

allow the tracking of old-growth stumps.

– record presence for all vascular plant species identified as 

late-successional/old-growth associates, e.g. those listed in 

the FEMAT report (1993).

– in thinned areas, record diameter (2-inch classes) and 

species of stumps in order to estimate basal area & number 

of trees per acre removed in thinning.

Four 8.33 ft (0.005 acres) fixed-radius subplots

– 4 satellites located 50 feet from plot center at the four 

cardinal directions.

– seedling count: for each tree species (conifers and 

hardwoods), tally the total number of stems that are 6 

inches to 4.5 feet in height.

– sapling count: for each conifer tree species, tally the total 

number of stems that are >4.5 feet in height and <2.0 

inches in diameter.

– record average height and absolute per cent cover for all 

vascular plant species. Height is recorded to the nearest 

foot for shrubs, and to the nearest 0.1 foot for herbs.

Coarse woody debris sampling

– 100% sample of the .25-acre plots for pieces that are 

>10.0 inches in diameter at the large end, when the 

large end of the piece is within the perimeter of the 

plot. To observe this tally rule, we will often need to 

determine which end is the large end. Record length, 

species, condition class, and large- and small-end 

diameters.

– 100% sample of the .005-acre plots for pieces that are 

3.0 - 9.9 inches in diameter at the large end and when 

the large end of the piece is within the perimeter of the 

plot.

72  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Data Recording and Storage

The Polycorder 2000 is intended to hold all the field data, to 

be downloaded to a PC for storage and editing. Data sheets 

have been developed in the event that field data should need 

to be recorded by hand. A spreadsheet application of the 

DataPlus software has been developed for this project for 

use on the Polycorders. Once downloaded, the data can be 

manipulated by software such as Lotus or Excel.

Salem District is hosting a training in March 2000 on the 

DataPlus Professional software, which will be used to develop 

a better handheld data recorder application for this year’s field 

measurements.

LITERATURE CITED

Berg, D. 1992. Measuring alternative harvest cutting systems. 

Olympic Natural Resources Center. Update Vol. p. 3-5

Cleary, B.D., R.D. Greaves, and R.K. Hermann. 1978. 

Regenerating Oregon’s forests. Oregon State University 

Extension Service. Corvallis, Oregon. 287 p.

Curtis, R.O. and D.D. Marshall. 1986. Levels of growing stock 

cooperative study in Douglas-fir. U.S.D.A. Forest Service 

Res. Paper PNW-356, 113 p.

Hobbs, S.D. and others. 1992. Reforestation practices in 

southwestern Oregon and northern California. Oregon State 

University, Forest Research Laboratory. 465 p.

Hunter, M. and others. 1995. Communique No. 2, Cascade 

Center for Ecosystem Management

King, J.E. 1986. Review of Douglas-fir thinning treatments. 

In Oliver, et al. (eds). Douglas-fir stand management for the 

future. Proceed. Institute of Forest Resources, University of 

Washington. Contrib. 55., 388 p.

Marshall, D.D., J. Bell, and J. Tappeiner. 1992. Levels-ofgrowing-stock cooperative study in Douglas-fir: Report No. 

10 — The Hoskins Study 1963-93. U.S.D.A. Forest Service 

Res. Paper PNW-RP-448, 65 p.

ROD. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendment to Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management planning 

documents within the range of the Northern Spotted 

Owl. Standards and guidelines for management of 

habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related 

species within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl. 

U.S.G.P.O.:1994 - 589-111/00001 Region No. 10.

Reukema, D.L. 1975. Guidelines for precommercial thinning 

of Douglas-fir. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report 

PNW-30, 10 p.

Ruth, R.H. and A.S. Harris. 1979. Management of western 

hemlock and sitka spruce forests for timber production. 

U.S.D.A. Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report PNW-88.

Smith, D. 1986. The practice of silviculture. Wiley and Sons. 

New York. 527 p.

Spies, T.A. and J.F. Franklin. 1991. The structure of natural 

young, mature, and old-growth Douglas-fir stands in 

western Oregon and Washington; Ruggiero et al (eds). 

U.S.D.A. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station 

Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-285, 533 p.

Tappeiner, J.C. and others. 1992. Managing Stands for 

Northern Spotted Owl Habitat. Appendix F. Final Recovery 

Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Portland, OR.

Williamson, R.L. 1982. Response to commercial thinning in 

a 110-year-old Douglas-fir stand. U.S.D.A. Forest Service 

Res. Paper PNW-296.

Appendixes  73
keer CydnaS

B

o

t

t

o

mlin

e

D

e

n

sit

y

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

a

n

d

Rip

a

ria

n

B

u

f

f

e

r

S

t

u

d

y

A

r

e

a

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 250

Feet

T. 21 S., R. 5 W., Section 1

W.M. Oregon, U

S

A

Treatment Type

ControlHighModerateVariable

Control

Unthinned

High Density

120 TPALeave IslandRiparian Buffer

Moderate Density

Patch Opening80 TPALeave IslandRiparian Buffer

Variable Density

Patch Opening40 TPA80 TPA120 TPALeave IslandRiparian Buffer

Microclimate TransectsUnderplantingsTreatment PlotsThinning PlotsSection

RoadStreams

Land O

wnership

BLM

O&C Land

All treatment and thinning plot locations have not beenverified and should not be used for locating plots on the ground.No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate usewith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. Thisinformation may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This productwas developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land ManagementOregon State Office

Bottomline

74  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Appendix E. Site Histories and Maps (site maps on left-facing page preceeding site description)

Initial Thinning Sites

Bottomline

Compiled by: Peter O’Toole (BLM, Eugene District), Sharmila Premdas (BLM, Eugene District)

1. Site location

Township 21 South

Range 05 West

Section 01

Latitude N43o46’20.0”

Longitude W123o14’11.0”

BLM District Eugene

BLM Resource Area Siuslaw

County Douglas

Appendixes  75
2. Site environment

Surface geology (% area in each type that occupies >10% 

of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

- Tyee Formation (100%)

- Tuffaceous siltstone and sandstone (100%)

- Tuffaceous siltstone and sandstone (52%); Tyee Formation (48%)

- Tyee Formation (100%)

Elevation range (feet, (meters))

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

846 - 1,089 (258 - 332)

863 - 1,148 (263 - 350)

801 - 1,211 (244 - 369)

774 - 1,181 (236 - 360)

Aspect (% area in each aspect class)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

N

0

8

19

16

NE

9

7

4

39

E

35

2

2

27

SE

37

3

2

14

S

17

45

3

2

SW

2

16

5

0

W

0

10

24

0

NW

0

9

41

2

Slope steepness (% area in each slope class)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

0%-30%

91

82

88

80

30%-60%

9

18

12

20

>60%

0

0

0

0

Soil series (% area in each soil series or complex that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

NOTE: soil series and complexes are defined in the 

Douglas County Soil Survey

- Windygap (97%); Other (3%)

- Windygap (61%); Honeygrove (23%); Orford (15%); Other (1%)

- Honeygrove (80%); Orford (17%); Other (3%)

- Honeygrove (71%); Windygap (23%); Other (6%)

Mean annual precipitation (inches) 50

Plant association group (% area in each group that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

- Tsuga heterophylla/Achlys triphylla-dry (71%); Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia 

nervosa-Oxalis oregana (29%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (38%); Tsuga heterophylla/Achlys 

triphylla-dry (25%); Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia nervosa-Oxalis oregana 

(13%); Pseudotsuga menziesii/Toxicodendron diversilobum (13%); 

Pseudotsuga menziesii/Holodiscus discolor-Whipplea modesta (13%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Achlys triphylla-dry (73%); Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia 

nervosa-Oxalis oregana (18%); Other (9%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Achlys triphylla-dry (60%); Abies grandis/Mahonia 

nervosa-Gaultheria shallon (25%); Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia nervosaOxalis oregana (10%); Other (5%)

Site index (Kings) 138

76  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
3. Site planning

RMP (name and date) Eugene District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, June 1995

RMP land use allocations Matrix (General Forest), Riparian Reserve

Watershed analysis (name and date) Siuslaw, 1996

LSR assessment (name and date) N/A

Environmental assessment

 - Name

 - Number

 - Date decision document signed

Bottomline Density Management

OR090-94-28

08/28/1995

Site potential tree height (feet) 210

Aerial photography (years available) Standard (1:12000) - 1984, 1995, 2000, 2002

4. Study design

Site selection criteria Site met minimum unit size and age range criteria, economically viable, and was 

already being evaluated for commercial thinning

Treatment assignment rationale

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

 - Control

Random

Random

Random

Random

Subtreatment location rationale

 - Leave islands

 - Patch cuts

 - Variable density areas

One-acre leave areas selected to protect habitat features thought to benefit lichens 

and bryophytes (large remnant live and dead trees, large logs, hardwood patches); 

1⁄2 and 1⁄4 acreleave areas placed along unit edges to minimize logging conflicts

Patch cuts were interspersed throughout the treatment block with consideration of 

logging feasibility

Low retention areas were placed in areas of low existing stem density to enhance 

tree stability; high retention areas were placed in areas of high existing stem 

density to enhance tree stability

Nonstandard treatments (type, location, rationale) Two small reserve islands were left in the high retention treatment to protect two 

species:

Buxbaumia piperi: one 80’ radius island

Orobanche pinorum: one 30’ radius island

Appendixes  77
5. Unit history

A. Pre-DMS

Regeneration harvest method Seed tree harvest (1939); most seed trees subsequently removed (date unknown), although a few 

scattered residual trees remain on site

Regeneration method Natural

Post-harvest slash treatment None

Precommercial thinning None

Prior commercial thinning None

Comments None

B. DMS - first treatment

Marking guidelines Standard DMS (see initial study plan, appendix C)

Timber sale

 - Sale name

 - Sale number

 - Sale award date

 - Sale closing date

 - Sale price for all study units (total 

for all species and sizes)

Bottomline

ORO90-TS95-357

10/18/95

10/18/97

$999,218

Logging dates

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

12/1995-10/1997

07/1997-09/1997

09/1997-11/1997

Logging systems

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

Cable yard

Cable yard

Cable yard

Merchantability standards Purchaser option to leave or take all designated trees above 6” DBH

Slash treatment None

Underplanting date 02/1998

Comments None

78  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan 
6. Acreage Table

Treatment and subtreatment Acres (Hectares) % Treatment

Area

Control

- Unthinned 46.3 (18.7) 100.0

High density

- Thinned (120 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Riparian buffer

Total

59.5 (24.1)

7.4 (3.0)

3.7 (1.5)

70.6 (28.6)

84.2

10.5

5.3

100.0

Moderate density

- Thinned (80 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Patch cuts

- Riparian buffer

Total

72.8 (29.5)

11.9 (4.8)

6.6 (2.7)

18.0 (7.3)

109.3 (44.2)

66.6

10.8

6.1

16.4

100.0

Variable density

- Thinned (120 TPA)

- Thinned (80 TPA)

- Thinned (40 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Patch cuts

- Riparian buffer

Total

16.4 (6.7)

20.8 (8.4)

10.4 (4.2)

7.6 (3.1)

8.5 (3.5)

10.0 (4.0)

73.7 (29.8)

22.3

28.2

14.1

10.3

11.6

13.5

100.0

Total 299.8 (121.3)

Appendixes  79
af c M Cll eer k

Callahan Creek

aS dn

r C ee k

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 250

Feet

T. 8 S., R. 7 W., Section 31

W.M. Oregon, U

S

A

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate usewith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. Thisinformation may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This productwas developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land ManagementOregon State Office

Callahan Creek

Tre

atm

e

nt Ty

p

e

ControlModerate

C

o

ntrol

Unthinned

M

o

d

erate

D

e

n

sity

80 T

P

A

Riparian Buffer

L

a

n

din

g

R/W Landing

Aquatic Vertebrate Transects

Microclimate Transects

RoadStreams

Land O

wnership

BLM

O

&

C Land

Private

C

alla

h

a

n

C

r

e

e

k

D

e

n

sit

y

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

a

n

d

Rip

a

ria

n

B

u

f

f

e

r

S

t

u

d

y

A

r

e

a

80 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Callahan Creek

Compiled by: Hugh Snook (BLM, Salem District) 

(Note: Callahan Creek is an anomaly and does not have all the treatments and subtreatments.)

1. Site location

Township 08 South

Range 07 West

Section 31

Latitude N44o50’05.0”

Longitude W123o35’26.0”

BLM District Salem

BLM Resource Area Mary’s Peak

County Polk

Appendixes  81
82  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan 

2. Site environment

Surface geology (% area in each type that occupies >10% 

of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - Moderate density treatment

- Tyee Formation (100%)

- Tyee Formation (100%)

Elevation range (feet, (meters))

 - Control

 - Moderate density treatment

1,263 - 1,608 (385 - 490)

1,263 - 1,893 (385 - 577)

Aspect (% area in each aspect class)

 - Control

 - Moderate density treatment

N

1

1

NE

1

4

E

26

16

SE

13

22

S

13

14

SW

14

16

W

30

20

NW

3

7

Slope steepness (% area in each slope class)

 - Control

 - Moderate density treatment

0%-30%

67

58

30%-60%

33

41

>60%

0

1

Soil series (% area in each soil series or complex that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - Moderate density treatment

NOTE: soil series and complexes are defined in the Polk 

County Soil Survey

- Bohannon (99%); Other (1%)

- Astoria (77%); Bohannon (22%); Other (1%)

Mean annual precipitation (inches) 115

Plant association group (% area in each group that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - Moderate density treatment

- Data unavailable

- Data unavailable

Site index (Kings) 130
3. Site planning

RMP (name and date) Salem District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, May 1995

RMP land use allocations North Coast Adaptive Management Area

Watershed analysis (name and date) Upper Siletz, 1996

LSR assessment (name and date) N/A

Environmental assessment

 - Name

 - Number

 - Date decision document signed

Callahan Creek Adaptive Management Project

OR-080-96-12

03/11/96

Site potential tree height (feet) 220

Aerial photography (years available) Standard (1:12000) - 1977, 1982, 1988, 1998, 2003; orthophotos - 1994, 2000 

4. Study design

Site selection criteria Densely stocked stand regenerated following a 1920 fire and suitable for thinning; 

in adaptive management area appropriate for study objectives; one unit of a 

larger thinning project, including Sand Creek; economically viable

Treatment assignment (rationale)

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

 - Control

Not included at this site

Only unit suitable for multiple riparian buffers

Not included at this site

Stream reach in McFall Creek within same stand type

Subtreatment location (rationale) None included at this site

Nonstandard treatments (type, location, rationale) 1. Only a subset of treatments are included at this site: moderate retention with 

alternative riparian buffers and a control; site is included only for the riparian 

buffer studies

2. Moderate retention unit does not include any leave islands or patch cuts

3. The portion of the control unit that also serves as the Sand Creek control was 

previously thinned (1975)

Appendixes  83
84  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan 

5. Unit history

A. Pre-DMS

Regeneration harvest method Clearcut postfire, approximately 1920

Regeneration method Natural

Post-harvest slash treatment Unknown

Precommercial thinning None

Prior commercial thinning None 

Comments Stand had approximately 175 TPA prior to thinning

B. DMS - first treatment

Marking guidelines Thin from below to leave 80 dominant and co-dominant trees per acre, at an 

approximate spacing of 23 feet, leaving approximately 133 ft2 basal area; 

do not mark conifers as leave trees in root rot pockets; leave all cull trees, 

multiple top trees, wolf trees or other wildlife habitat trees; leave snags, 

overstory hardwoods, and Pacific yew; favor hemlock and cedar for leave 

trees

Timber Sale

 - Sale name

 - Sale number

 - Sale award date

 - Sale closing date

 - Sale price for study units, total for all species and sizes

Callahan Creek Thinning

97-301

02/27/97

06/24/98

$707,496

DMS treatment date 01/1998-04/1998

Logging systems Helicopter

Merchantability standards All designated trees down to 7.0 inches DBH were required to be removed

Slash treatment Slash concentrations on landings were burned (11/1998)

Underplanting date Not applicable

Comments 1. Entry permits required in the Luckiamute Closure and Cooperative Travel 

Management Area

2. Two genetic program “superior” trees in thinning area reserved: near center 

of section 31 just east of the 9-7-6 road, and in Unit 1 on the ridge above 

McFall Creek
6. Acreage table

Treatment and subtreatment Acres (Hectares) % Treatment

Area

Control

- Unthinned.36 56.5 (22.9) 100.0

Moderate density

- Thinned (80 TPA)

- Riparian buffers

Total

151.0 (61.1)

71.9 (29.1)

223.0 (90.2)

67.7

32.3

100.0

Total 279.5 (113.1)

Note: Callahan Creek is unique among the initial thinning study sites in that only the moderate density and control 

treatments were implemented, and only the thinning portion of the moderate density treatment was implemented 

(i.e., no leave islands or patch cuts). Callahan Creek is included as a DMS study site because it is part of the riparian 

buffer study.

Appendixes  85
DELPH

CREEK

D

elp

h

C

r

e

e

k

D

e

n

sit

y

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

a

n

d

Rip

a

ria

n

B

u

f

f

e

r

S

t

u

d

y

A

r

e

a

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 250

Feet

T. 14 S., R. 6 W., Section 7

W.M. Oregon, U

S

A

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate usewith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. Thisinformation may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This productwas developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land ManagementOregon State Office

Delph Creek

Treatment Type

ControlHighModerateVariable

Control

Unthinned

High Density

120 TPALeave IslandRiparian Buffer

Moderate Density

Patch Opening80 TPALeave IslandRiparian Buffer

Variable Density

Patch Opening40 TPA80 TPA120 TPALeave Island

Aquatic Vertebrate TransectsUnderplantingsTreatment PlotsThinning PlotsDemonstration UnitsRoadsStreams

Land O

wnership

BLM O&C Land

86  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Delph Creek

Compiled by: Charley Thompson (BLM, Salem District)

1. Site location

Township 03 South

Range 05 East

Section 35

Latitude N45o15’56.0”

Longitude W122o9’33.0”

BLM District Salem

BLM Resource Area Cascades

County Clackamas

Appendixes  87
2. Site environment

Surface geology (% area in each type that occupies >10% 

of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

- Undifferentiated flows and clastic rocks (100%)

- Undifferentiated flows and clastic rocks (79%); basalt 

and andesite (21%)

- Undifferentiated flows and clastic rocks (56%); basalt 

and andesite (44%)

- Undifferentiated flows and clastic rocks (88%); basalt 

and andesite (12%)

Elevation range (feet, (meters))

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

1,916 - 2,106 (584 - 642)

2,083 - 2,365 (635 - 721)

1,827 - 2,310 (557 - 704)

1,919 - 2,080 (585 - 634)

Aspect (% area in each aspect class)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

N

1

9

33

0

NE

1

0

2

2

E

3

0

0

2

SE

4

0

0

3

S

14

7

1

17

SW

21

19

7

42

W

41

33

21

25

NW

14

33

37

8

Slope steepness (% area in each slope class)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

0%-30%

97

100

77

100

30%-60%

3

0

23

0

>60%

0

0

0

0

Soil series (% area in each soil series or complex that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

NOTE: soil series and complexes are defined in the 

Clackamas County Soil Survey

- Kinney (90%); Other (10%)

- Wilhoit-Zygore (80%); Zygore (18%); Other (2%)

- Aschoff (35%); Wilhoit-Zygore (33%); Kinney (26%); 

Other (6%)

- Wilhoit-Zygore (57%); Klickitat-Kinney (42%); Other 

(1%)

Mean annual precipitation (inches) 75

Plant association group (% area in each group that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

- Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (83%); Tsuga 

heterophylla/Mahonia nervosa-Oxalis oregana (17%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (80%); Tsuga 

heterophylla/Mahonia nervosa-Oxalis oregana (20%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (100%)

- Tsuga Heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (56%); Tsuga 

heterophylla/Mahonia nervosa-Oxalis oregana (44%)

Site index (Kings) 122

88  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
3. Site planning

RMP (name and date) Salem District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, May 

1995

RMP land use allocations Matrix (General Forest), Riparian Reserve

Watershed analysis (name and date) Eagle Creek, 1995

LSR assessment (name and date) N/A

Environmental assessment

 - Name

 - Number

 - Date decision document signed

Delph Creek Density Management Project

# OR080-97-21

8/17/98

Site potential tree height (feet) 200 feet

Aerial photography (years available) Standard (1:12000) - 1956, 1967, 1970, 1977, 1982, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003; 

low-elevation (1:2400) 2002

4. Study design

Site selection criteria Selected as a back-up site after the initial site for the northern Cascade Range 

in Oregon (Lookout Point, TRS 1S-5E-13) was dropped due to concerns 

from the City of Portland; site met minimum unit size and age range criteria, 

economically viable

Treatment assignment (rationale)

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

 - Control

Random assignment to one of two available units

Random assignment to one of two units suitable for the riparian buffer studies

Random assignment to one of two available units

Random assignment to one of two units suitable for the riparian buffer studies

Note: Two units with streams were suitable for the riparian buffer studies and 

assigned to the moderate and control treatments; the two remaining units 

without streams were available for the high and variable treatments

Subtreatment location (rationale)

 - Leave islands

 - Patch cuts

 - Variable thinning density areas

Primary goal was to maximize post-treatment horizontal diversity; some leave 

areas were selected to protect late-successional habitat features (large remnant 

live and dead trees, large logs, hardwood patches)

Patch cuts were interspersed throughout the treatment block to maximize posttreatment horizontal diversity

A unique layout design was used with the internal unit boundaries parallel to 

one another for the 120 TPA and 80 TPA areas, and circular 40 TPA areas 

distributed among both the 120 TPA and the 80 TPA areas

Nonstandard treatments (type, location, rationale) 1. A single two-acre 40 TPA area and three two-acre 20 TPA areas were 

placed near the road separating the moderate and high density treatments for 

demonstration and field tour purposes; these areas were subsequently excluded 

from the formal measured treatments

2. Following harvest, 352 trees were treated under a service contract to create snag 

habitat; all trees were located in riparian buffers and were at least 20 inches 

DBH; 86 trees were topped and 133 were top-girdled 20 feet from the top, or at 

a 6-inch minimum top diameter; another 133 trees were girdled 60 feet from the 

ground; this work began in October 2002 and was completed in March 2003

3. An unknown number of yarding corridor trees were left on the ground as fresh 

log habitat; these trees were at least 20 inches DBH and most were located near 

the end of yarding corridors close to riparian buffers

4. Two 1⁄4-acre areas along the field tour trail were planted with western hemlock 

and western redcedar for demonstration purposes; these underplanted areas are 

in the thinned portion of the moderate treatment unit, and in the middle of a 

one-acre leave island (A-11) in the heavy treatment

Appendixes  89
90 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan 

5. Unit history

A. Pre-DMS

Regeneration harvest method Clearcut (1935-38), seed trees may have been left and subsequently removed

Regeneration method Natural

Post-harvest slash treatment On-the-ground evidence indicates broadcast burning, unconfirmed

Precommercial thinning 1974, 14 x 14 spacing

Prior commercial thinning None

Comments Evidence of steam donkey logging on site

B. DMS - first treatment

Marking guidelines Standard DMS (see initial study plan, Appendix C) with the following 

specifications:

- merchantable dead, down, and dying trees less than 20 inches in diameter 

(DBH) were marked for removal; larger dead, down, and dying trees were 

reserved

- all tree species other than Douglas-fir were favored for retention within 50 

feet of root rot infection centers

- all trees in the genetics program (“Plus trees”) were reserved

Timber sale

 - Sale name

 - Sale number

 - Sale award date

 - Sale closing date

 - Sale price for all study units (total for all species and 

sizes)

Delph Creek

98-501

12/09/98

12/11/01

$576,800

Logging dates

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

01/00 - 03/00

01/00 - 04/00

01/00 - 07/00

Logging systems

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

cable yarding

tractor yarding

tractor yarding

Merchantability standards All marked trees greater than 7 inches DBH were elgible for removal; all trees 

less than 7 inches DBH were retained

Slash treatment Lop and scatter slash within 25 feet of Road 4-5E-3.0 (main road that crosses 

Delph Creek); slash on landings was piled, some piles were burned and 

some remain on site

Underplanting date 03/2001 (high and moderate units), 03/2002 (variable density unit)

Comments None
6. Acreage table

Treatment and subtreatment Acres (Hectares) % Treatment

Area

Control

- Unthinned 55.1 (22.3) 100.0

High density

- Thinned (120 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Riparian buffers

Total

54.6 (22.1)

6.7 (2.7)

1.8 (.7)

63.1 (25.6)

86.4

10.7

2.9

100.0

Moderate density

- Thinned (80 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Patch cuts

- Riparian buffers

Total

89.7 (36.3)

7.3 (2.9)

7.2 (2.9)

10.7 (4.3)

114.8 (46.5)

78.1

6.3

6.3

9.3

100.0

Variable density

- Thinned (120 TPA)

- Thinned (80 TPA)

- Thinned (40 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Patch cuts

Total

24.8 (10.0)

22.6 (9.1)

6.5 (2.6)

7.2 (2.9)

4.8 (1.9)

65.8 (26.6)

37.6

34.2

9.9

11.0

7.2

100.0

Total 298.9 (121.0)

Appendixes  91
92  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan 

G

r

e

e

n

P

e

a

k

D

e

n

sit

y

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

a

n

d

Rip

a

ria

n

B

u

f

f

e

r

S

t

u

d

y

A

r

e

a

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 250

Feet

T. 14 S., R. 6 W., Section 7

W.M. Oregon, U

S

A

Treatment Types

ControlHighModerateVariable

Control

Unthinned

High Density

120 TPALeave IslandRiparian Buffer

Moderate Density

Patch Opening80 TPALeave Island

Riparian Buffer

Variable Density

Patch Opening40 TPA80 TPA120 TPALeave IslandRiparian Buffer

Aquatic Vertebrate TransectMicroclimate TransectsUnderplantingsTreatment PlotsThinning PlotsRoadsStreams

Land O

wnership

BLM

O&C Land

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate usewith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. Thisinformation may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This productwas developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land ManagementOregon State Office

Green Peak
Green Peak

Compiled by: Hugh Snook (BLM, Salem District)

1. Site location

Township 14 South

Range 6 West

Section 7

Latitude N44o22’00.0”

Longitude W123o27’ 30.0”

BLM District Salem

BLM Resource Area Marys Peak

County Benton County

Appendixes  93
2. Site environment

Surface geology (% area in each type that occupies >10% 

of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

- Tyee Formation (62%); mafic intrusions (38%)

- Tyee Formation (100%)

- Tyee Formation (51%); mafic intrusions (49%)

- Tyee Formation (100%)

Elevation range (feet, (meters))

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

1,860 - 2,510 (567 - 765)

1,719 - 2,352 (524 - 717)

1,549 - 2,431 (472 - 741)

1,657 - 1,991 (505 - 607)

Aspect (% area in each aspect class)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

N

18

0

14

33

NE

37

1

27

10

E

29

33

26

18

SE

14

57

28

32

S

1

9

2

2

SW

0

0

1

0

W

0

0

0

0

NW

1

0

2

5

Slope steepness(% area in each slope class)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

0%-30%

40

12

57

66

30%-60%

58

83

42

31

>60%

2

6

1

2

Soil series (% area in each soil series or complex that 

ccupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

NOTE: soil series and complexes are defined in the 

Benton County Soil Survey

- Fiverivers-Grassmountain-Chintimini (35%); Oldblue-Burntwoods (23%); 

Burntwoods-Oldblue (22%); Murtip-Giveout-Laderly (11%); Other (9%)

- Fiverivers-Grassmountain-Chintimini (67%); Caterl-Murtip-Laderly (27%); 

Other (6%)

- Burntwoods-Oldblue (32%); Fiverivers-Grassmountain-Chintimini (22%); 

Murtip-Giveout-Laderly (15%); Shivigny-Honeygrove (15%); CaterlMurtip-Laderly (10%); Other (6%)

- Murtip-Giveout-Laderly (58%); Oldblue-Burntwoods (22%); KlistanHarslow (17%); Other (3%)

Mean annual precipitation (inches) 55

Plant association group (% area in each group that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

- Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (44%); Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia 

nervosa-Oxalis oregana (33%); Tsuga heterophylla/Achlys triphylla-dry 

(11%); Tsuga heterophylla/Vaccinium alaskense-Oxalis oregana (11%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia nervosa-Oxalis oregana (67%); Tsuga 

heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (33%); 

- Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia nervosa-Oxalis oregana (57%); Tsuga 

heterophylla/Achlys triphylla-dry (21%); Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis 

oregana (21%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia nervosa-Oxalis oregana (61%); Tsuga 

heterophylla/Achlys triphylla-dry (22%); Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis 

oregana (17%)

Site index (Kings) 123

94  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
3. Site planning

RMP (name and date) Salem District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, May 1995

RMP land use allocations Late-Successional Reserve, Riparian Reserve

Watershed analysis (name and date) Benton Foothills, 1997

LSR assessment (name and date) Oregon Coast Province – Southern Portion, 1996

Environmental assessment

 - Name

 - Number

 - Date decision document signed

Green Peak Density Management

OR-080-97-25

09/24/98

Site potential tree height (feet) 220

Aerial photography (years available) Standard (1:12000) - 1977, 1982, 1988, 1998, 2003; orthophotos - 1993, 2002 

(Weyerhaeuser Company provided)

4. Study design

Site selection criteria Placed in a late-successional reserve because of limited suitable lands elsewhere; site 

met minimum unit size and age range criteria, economically viable

Treatment assignment (rationale)

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

 - Control

Assigned by default, no streams present or needed

Unit best for alternative riparian buffer treatments because of multiple independent 

streams

Placed where a stream is present to create additional sampling opportunities for the 

microclimate study

Unit contains streams for the riparian buffer studies and avoids road construction

Note: First priority was to select two units with streams for the moderate and control 

treatments to accommodate the riparian buffer studies

Subtreatment location (rationale)

 - Leave islands

 - Patch cuts

 - Variable thinning density areas

Several islands were used to protect species under the “Survey and Manage” 

guidelines in effect at the time of the timber sale (see below); otherwise islands 

were distributed to promote horizontal diversity and to facilitate logging operations

Distributed to promote horizontal diversity and to facilitate logging operations

Located to create sampling opportunities for the microclimate study

Nonstandard treatments (type, location, rationale) 1. Leave island locations were located to protect identified “Survey and Manage” 

species

- Leave island #8 in moderate density treatment moved to include: Craterellus 

neotubaeformis, Cantharellus formosus, Galerina atkinsoniana, Galerina 

uiltiformis, Stropharia olbivelata, and Gyromitra esculenta

- Leave island #13 in moderate density treatment was moved to include Phaeocollybia

sp. and Gomphus clavatus.

- Leave island #3 in moderate density treatment moved to include lichens: 

Sticta limbata, Nephroma laevigatum, Peltigera collina, Peltigera pacifica, 

Fuscopannaria saubinetti, Lobaria oregana, Lobaria pulmonaria, 

Pseudocyphellaria anthraspis.

- Leave island #12 in moderate density treatment was moved to include Sarcosoma 

mexicana. 

- Otidea onotica protected by reserving several trees around site.

Appendixes  95
96  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

5. Unit history

A. Pre-DMS

Regeneration harvest method Clearcut (1933-1935), seed trees may have been left and subsequently 

removed; area was grazed for several years after timber harvest; a forest fire 

burned the area in 1943

Regeneration method Natural

Post-harvest slash treatment None, though a forest fire burned the area in 1943

Precommercial thinning None

Prior commercial thinning None

Comments Cattle grazing occurred in the early years of stand establishment; concrete 

watering trough found on site

B. DMS - first treatment

Marking guidelines Standard DMS (see initial study plan, Appendix C) with the following 

specifications:

- trees <5 inches DBH were reserved from cutting or damage

- trees >30 inches DBH were reserved

- genetic program “plus” tree was reserved ( one occurs in the northwest 

corner of the Variable Density treatment) and protected with a two-tree wide 

buffer

Timber Sale

 - Sale name

 - Sale number

 - Sale award date

 - Sale closing date

 - Sale price for study units, total for all species and sizes

Green Peak

OR080-TS99-302

10/30/99

06/29/00

$638,765

Logging dates

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

10/1999-02/2000

10/1999-02/2000

10/1999-11/1999

Logging systems

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

Cable yarding

Cable yarding, except for ground-based yarding between Forest Road 14-6-

17.1 and Forest Road 14-6-7.4, and on the lower half of the ridge between 

the variable width-buffered stream and the streamside retention-buffered 

stream

Cable yarding, except for ground-based yarding above Forest Road 14-6-7.5

Merchantability standards Minimum diameter limit set at 5 inches DBH

Slash treatment Slash within 30 feet of landings was piled (01/2000) and burned (11/2001)

Underplanting date 03/2000

Comments 1. Adjacent private land in section 14-6-18, along south boundary, and 14-6-8, 

southwest quarter section along east boundary, was clearcut harvested in 

2003

2. A snow and ice storm in January 2004 resulted in significant top snap, 

breakage, and downed trees in the moderate unit; effects were concentrated 

at upper unit edge and on both sides of the 14-6-7.4 road.

3. South slope below 14-6-7.5 road contains relatively shallow soils, and 

is rockier and drier with a component of golden chinkapin (Castanopsis 

chrysophylla))
Appendixes  97

6. Acreage table

Treatment and subtreatment Acres (Hectares) % Treatment

Area

Control

- Unthinned 57.0 (23.1) 100.0

High density

- Thinned (120 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Riparian buffers

Total

28.3 (11.5)

4.5 (1.8)

1.2 (.5)

34.0 (13.8)

83.4

13.2

3.4

100.0

Moderate density

- Thinned (80 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Patch cuts

- Riparian buffers

Total

76.5 (31.0)

7.8 (3.1)

7.3 (2.9)

22.7 (9.2)

114.2 (46.2)

67.0

6.8

6.4

19.9

100.0

Variable density

- Thinned (120 TPA)

- Thinned (80 TPA)

- Thinned (40 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Patch cuts

- Riparian buffers

Total

14.4 (5.8)

14.3 (5.8)

7.3 (3.0)

4.5 (1.8)

4.5 (1.8)

8.0 (3.3)

53.0 (21.4)

27.1

27.0

13.8

8.5

8.5

15.2

100.0

Total 258.1 (104.5)
98  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

K

e

el M

o

u

n

t

ain

D

e

n

sit

y

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

a

n

d

Rip

a

ria

n

B

u

f

f

e

r

S

t

u

d

y

A

r

e

a

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 250

Feet

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land ManagementOregon State Office

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate usewith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. Thisinformation may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This productwas developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

T. 12

S., R. 1 E., S

e

ctio

n 13

W.M. Ore

g

o

n, U

S

A

Tre

atm

e

nt Ty

p

e

ControlHighModerateVariable

C

o

ntrol

Unthinned

Hig

h

D

e

n

sity

120 TPALeave IslandRiparian Buffer

M

o

d

erate

D

e

n

sity

Patch Opening80 TPALeave IslandRiparian Buffer

Varia

ble

D

e

n

sity

Patch Opening40 TPA80 TPA120 TPALeave IslandRiparian Buffer

Aquatic Vertebrate TransectsMicroclimate TransectsUnderplantingsTreatment PlotsThinning PlotsRoadsStreams

Land O

wnership

BLM

O&C Land

Keel Mountain
Keel Mountain

Compiled by: Charley Thompson (BLM, Salem District)

1. Site location

Township 12 South

Range 01 East

Section 13

Latitude N44o31’41.0”

Longitude W122o37’55.0”

BLM District Salem

BLM Resource Area Cascades

County Linn

Appendixes  99
100 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

2. Site environment

Surface geology (% area in each type that occupies >10% 

of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

- Undifferentiated tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, tuffs, and basalt (100%)

- Undifferentiated tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, tuffs, and basalt (100%)

- Undifferentiated tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, tuffs, and basalt (100%)

- Undifferentiated tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, tuffs, and basalt (100%)

Elevation range (feet, (meters))

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

2,146 - 2,421 (654 - 738)

2,024 - 2,434 (617 - 742)

2,162 - 2,520 (659 - 768)

2,162 - 2,480 (659 - 756)

Aspect (% area in each aspect class)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

N

2

6

18

15

NE

0

0

2

0

E

0

0

0

0

SE

0

0

0

0

S

2

22

6

9

SW

28

28

45

10

W

50

13

19

21

NW

18

31

10

44

Slope steepness(% area in each slope class)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

0%-30%

97

83

91

89

30%-60%

3

16

9

10

>60%

0

0

0

0

Soil series (% area in each soil series or complex that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

NOTE: soil series and complexes are defined in the Linn 

County Soil Survey

- Blachly (99%); Other (1%)

- Kinney (62%); Harrington- Klickitat (38%)

- Kinney (65%); Blachly (22%); Other (13%)

- Kinney (100%)

Mean annual precipitation (inches) 65

Plant association group (% area in each group that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

- Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (100%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia nervosa-Oxalis oregana (50%); Tsuga 

heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (38%); Tsuga heterophylla/Achlys triphylladry (13%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (77%); Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia 

nervosa-Oxalis oregana (23%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (76%); Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia 

nervosa-Oxalis oregana (24%)

Site index (Kings) 127
Appendixes 101

3. Site planning

RMP (name and date) Salem District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, May 1995

RMP land use allocations Matrix (General Forest), Riparian Reserve

Watershed analysis (name and date) Hamilton Creek, 1995

Environmental assessment

 - Name

 - Number

 - Date decision document signed

Keel Mountain

OR080-96-28

11/4/96

Site potential tree height (feet) 240

Aerial photography (years available) Standard (1:12000) - 1956, 1959, 1967, 1977, 1982, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003

4. Study design

Site selection criteria Picked from one of three sites under consideration because it had multiple streams 

suitable for the riparian buffer study; site met minimum unit size and age range 

criteria, economically viable

Treatment assignment (rationale)

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

 - Control

Default after the other three treatments were assigned

Unit best for alternative riparian buffer treatments because of multiple stream 

reaches

Unit assigned because flatter ground made it much easier to lay out this complex 

treatment

Unit contained a stream suitable for the riparian buffer studies, and the location 

facilitates field tours

Note: First priority was to select two units with streams for the moderate and 

control treatments to accommodate the riparian buffer studies

Subtreatment location (rationale)

 - Leave islands

 - Patch cuts

 - Variable thinning density areas

One-acre leave areas selected to protect habitat features thought to benefit lichens 

and bryophytes (large remnant live and dead trees, large logs, hardwood patches); 

1⁄2 and 1⁄4 acreleave areas were located to protect tree improvement parent trees, 

or to maximize horizontal variability; logging systems constrained locations

Patch cuts were located in Phellinus weirii infection centers, or to promote 

horizontal variability; logging systems and plots from the collaborative lichen 

study constrained locations

Thinned areas were interspersed throughout the unit to maximize horizontal 

diversity

Note: there is a five–page description in the files describing Keel Mountain leave 

island and patch cut layout in detail

Nonstandard treatments (type, location, rationale) 1. The collaborative lichen study resulted in additional one-acre leave islands (one 

additional in the high retention unit, two additional in the moderate retention 

unit, two additional in the variable retention unit), and forced some patch cuts to 

be located adjacent to each other
102  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

5. Unit history

A. Pre-DMS

Regeneration harvest method Clearcut (1949-53), seed trees may have been left and subsequently 

removed

Regeneration method Natural regeneration, except that approximately 12 acres in the eastern 

portions of the moderate and variable density units were planted in 1958-

59

Post-harvest slash treatment None; general area was extensively “desnagged” around 1960 as part of a 

fire hazard reduction effort resulting in an abundance of large logs on site

Precommercial thinning PCT on a 14 x 14 spacing in 1971-72

Prior commercial thinning None

Comments Tractor yarding; some evidence of railroad yarding also, unconfirmed

B. DMS - first treatment

Marking guidelines Standard DMS (see initial study plan, Appendix C) with the following 

specifications:

- reserve genetics program parent trees

- reserve trees should have crown ratios of at least 40%

- mark western hemlock infected with dwarf mistletoe to cut

- leave extra growing space around western redcedar and hardwoods

Timber Sale

- Sale name

- Sale number

- Sale award date

- Sale closing date

- Sale price for study units, total for all species and sizes

Keel Mountain

OR080-TS7-507

01/23/97

09/27/00

$623,798

Logging dates

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

07/1997-02/1998

07/1997-09/1998

07/1997-09/1998

Logging systems

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

Cable yarding

Ground-based yarding

Ground-based yarding

Merchantability standards All marked trees greater than 7 inches DBH were elgible for removal; all trees 

less than 7 inches DBH were retained

Slash treatment Lop and scatter slash within 25 feet of Road 12-1E-14.03 (main road through 

middle of sale area); slash on landings was piled, some piles were burned 

and some remain on site

Underplanting date 03/1999

Comments
Appendixes 10

3

6. Acreage table

Treatment and subtreatment Acres (Hectares) % Treatment

Area

Control

- Unthinned 44.9 (18.1) 100.0

High density

- Thinned (120 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Riparian buffers

Total

62.1 (25.1)

2.3 (0.9)

22.1 (8.9)

86.4 (35.0)

71.8

2.7

25.6

100.0

Moderate density

- Thinned (80 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Patch cuts

- Riparian buffers

Total

44.7 (18.1)

4.3 (1.7)

7.1 (2.9)

30.8 (12.5)

87.0 (35.2)

51.4

5.0

8.2

35.4

100.0

Variable density

- Thinned (120 TPA)

- Thinned (80 TPA)

- Thinned (40 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Patch cuts

- Riparian buffers

Total

17.6 (7.1)

19.3 (7.8)

7.9 (3.2)

2.3 (0.9)

7.4 (3.0)

44.0 (17.8)

98.6 (39.9)

17.9

19.6

8.0

2.3

7.5

44.6

100.0

Total 316.9 (128.2)
104  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

NORTH

FORK

S

O

UP

CREEK

N

o

r

t

h

S

o

u

p

C

r

e

e

k

D

e

n

sit

y

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

a

n

d

Rip

a

ria

n

B

u

f

f

e

r

S

t

u

d

y

A

r

e

a

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 250

Feet

T. 23 S., R. 9 W., Section 16

W.M. Oregon, U

S

A

Treatment

ControlHighModerateVariable

C

ontrol

Unthinned

High Density

120 TPALeave Island

M

o

derate Density

Patch Opening80 TPALeave IslandRiparian Buffer

Variable Density

Patch Opening40 TPA80 TPA120 TPALeave IslandRiparian Buffer

Aquatic Vertebrate TransectsMicroclimate TransectsUnder PlantingsTreatment PlotsThinning PlotsSectionRoadsStreams

Land O

wnership

BLM

O&C Land

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate usewith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. Thisinformation may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This productwas developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land ManagementOregon State Office

North Soup

Creek
Appendixes 105

North Soup

Compiled by: Frank Price (BLM, Coos Bay District)

1. Site location

Township 23 South

Range 09 West

Section 16

Latitude N43o33’57.0”

Longitude W123o46’38.0”

BLM District Coos Bay

BLM Resource Area Umpqua

County Douglas
106  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

2. Site environment

Surface geology (% area in each type that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

- Elkton Formation and related rocks (100%)

- Elkton Formation and related rocks (100%)

- Elkton Formation and related rocks (100%)

- Elkton Formation and related rocks (100%)

Elevation range (feet, (meters))

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

587 - 1,345 (179 - 410)

807 - 1,335 (246 - 407)

522 - 991 (159 - 302)

577 - 1,348 (176- 411)

Aspect (% area in each aspect class)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

N

23

26

33

12

NE

1

12

17

8

E

0

1

0

0

SE

1

0

0

1

S

1

0

0

0

SW

0

0

0

0

W

7

5

20

37

NW

66

56

29

41

Slope steepness(% area in each slope class)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

0%-30%

47

58

53

35

30%-60%

46

32

40

50

>60%

6

10

7

15

Soil series (% area in each soil series or complex 

that occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

NOTE: soil series and complexes are defined in 

the Douglas County Soil Survey

- Absaquil-Blachly-McDuff (56%); McDuff-Absaquil-Blachly (22%); DiggerBohannon-Umpcoos (15%); Other (7%)

- Absaquil-Blachly-McDuff (60%); Digger-Bohannon-Umpcoos (25%); DiggerBohannon (15%)

- Absaquil-Blachly-McDuff (28%); Digger-Bohannon-Umpcoos (26%); McDuffAbsaquil-Blachly (25%); Preacher-Bohannon-Blachly (21%)

- Absaquil-Blachly-McDuff (44%); Digger-Bohannon-Umpcoos (32%); PreacherBohannon-Blachly (21%); Other (3%)

Mean annual precipitation (inches) 85

Plant association group (% area in each group 

that occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

- Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (60%); Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia nervosaOxalis oregana (30%); Tsuga heterophylla/Rhododendron macrophyllum-Mahonia 

nervosa (10%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (63%); Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia nervosaOxalis oregana (38%); 

- Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (92%); Other (8%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (59%); Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia nervosaOxalis oregana (27%); Tsuga heterophylla/Rhododendron macrophyllum-Mahonia 

nervosa (14%)

Site index (Kings) 132
Appendixes 107

3. Site planning

RMP (name and date) Coos Bay District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, May 1995

RMP land use allocations Late-Successional Reserve

Watershed analysis (name and date) Mill Creek, 1995

LSR assessment (name and date) South Coast - Northern Klamath, 1998

Environmental assessment

 - Name

 - Number

 - Date decision document signed

North Soup Density Management Study

OR125-96-08

07/22/96

Site potential tree height (feet) 200

Aerial photography (years available) Standard (1:12000) - 1952, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1981, 1986, 1992, 1997, 2002

4. Study design

Site selection criteria Site met minimum unit size and age range criteria, economically viable; streams and 

streamside vegetation suitable for the riparian buffer studies; candidate sites were 

very limited due to fragmentation from past timber harvests and highly dissected 

landforms

Treatment assignment (rationale)

- High retention unit

- Moderate retention unit

- Variable retention unit

- Control

The high retention treatment does not require streams for the riparian buffer studies and 

was assigned to a unit without streams

The selected unit had sufficient streams to accommodate a one site-potential-tree width 

buffer, a variable-width buffer with a patch cut on either side, and a streamside buffer

This unit contains a stream to provide additional sampling opportunities for the 

microclimate study

This unit contains a stream for the riparian buffer studies, and would have required 

significant logging road construction costs if it were selected for an active treatment

Note: First priority was to select two units with streams for the moderate and control 

treatments to accommodate the riparian buffer studies

Subtreatment location (rationale)

- Leave islands

- Patch cuts

- Variable thinning density areas

Dispersed throughout units; located to avoid yarding corridors; some islands were 

located to protect wet areas

Dispersed throughout units; two patch cuts were located next to the variable-width 

riparian buffer in the moderate treatment unit to accommodate the microclimate 

study

Goal was to maximize structural and compositional diversity; high (120 TPA) and 

medium (80 TPA) density areas were placed on opposing sides of draws, and low 

density (40 TPA) areas were interspersed where they would fit

Nonstandard treatments (type, location, rationale) 1. Three seed trees in the tree improvement program were left in the high retention unit 

and marked with red paint, tags, and painted orange above and below stump height
108  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

5. Unit history

A. Pre-DMS

Regeneration harvest method Seed tree (prior to 1948); seed trees were likely removed during salvage sales 

in the project area in 1954 and/or 1956

Regeneration method Natural

Post-harvest slash treatment Unknown

Precommercial thinning None

Prior commercial thinning None

Comment BLM assumed management responsibility for this section in a 1948 land 

exchange

B. DMS

Marking guidelines Standard DMS (see initial study plan, Appendix C)

Timber Sale

 - Sale name

 - Sale number

 - Sale award date

 - Sale closing date

 - Sale price for study units, total for all species and sizes

North Soup Density Management

OR120-TS96-09

10/8/96

03/06/00

$335,379

Treatment date

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

North half - 08/1998; south half - 09/1999

08/1998

North of road - 08/1998; south of road - 09/1999

Logging systems

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

Cable yard, one-end suspension

Cable yard, one-end suspension

Cable yard, one-end suspension

Merchantability standards Minimum TOP diameter limit set at 6 inches

Slash treatment Slash within 20 feet of roads was piled and burned

Underplanting date 02/2000

Comments 1. All new roads were blocked following slash disposal to reduce risks to 

aquatic ecosystems and reduce disturbance to wildlife

2. A snow, ice, and wind storm in early 2004 resulted in top and stem breakage 

and blowdown of scattered patches and individual trees throughout the 

study site
Appendixes 10

9

6. Acreage table

Treatment and subtreatment Acres (Hectares) % Treatment

Area

Control

- Unthinned 58.3 (23.6) 100.0

High density

- Thinned (120 TPA)

- Leave islands

Total

54.5 (22.1)

5.4 (2.2)

59.9 (24.3)

91.0

9.0

100.0

Moderate density

- Thinned (80 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Patch cuts

- Riparian buffers

Total

33.6 (13.6)

5.3 (2.1)

5.8 (2.3)

12.9 (5.2)

57.6 (23.3)

58.4

9.2

10.0

22.4

100.0

Variable density

- Thinned (120 TPA)

- Thinned (80 TPA)

- Thinned (40 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Patch cuts

- Riparian buffers

Total

21.2 (8.6)

16.7 (6.8)

6.0 (2.4)

5.6 (2.3)

5.6 (2.3)

2.2 (0.9)

57.3 (23.2)

36.9

29.1

10.5

9.8

9.8

3.9

100.0

Total 233.0 (94.3)
110 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

2

4

19

O.M. H

u

b

b

a

r

d

D

e

n

sit

y

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

a

n

d

Rip

a

ria

n

B

u

f

f

e

r

S

t

u

d

y

A

r

e

a

T. 26 S., R. 8 W.,

Section 19, 24

W.M. Oregon, U

S

A

Treatment

ControlHighModerateVariable

Control

Unthinned

High Density

120 TPALeave Island

Riparian Buffer

Moderate Density

Patch Opening80 TPALeave Island

Riparian Buffer

Variable Density

Patch Opening40 TPA80 TPA120 TPALeave IslandRiparian Buffer

Aquatic Vertebrate TransectsMicroclimate TransectsUnderplantingsTreatment PlotsThinning PlotsSectionRoadsStreams

Land O

wnership

BLM

O&C Land

BLM Public Domain LandPrivate

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate usewith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. Thisinformation may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This productwas developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land ManagementOregon State Office

O

M

Hubbard

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 250

Feet
Appendixes 111

OM Hubbard

Compiled by: Craig Kintop (BLM, Roseburg District)

1. Site location

Township 25 South/26 South

Range 7 West/8 West

Section 19/24

Latitude N43o17’30.0”

Longitude W123o35’00.0”

BLM District Roseburg

BLM Resource Area Swiftwater

County Douglas
112  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

2. Site environment

Surface geology (% area in each type that occupies >10% 

of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

- Tyee Formation (100%)

- Tyee Formation (100%)

- Tyee Formation (100%)

- Tyee Formation (100%)

Elevation range (feet, (meters))

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

1,430 - 2,024 (436 - 617)

1,434 - 2,133 (437 - 650)

1,411 - 2,569 (430 - 783)

1,293 - 1,713 (394 - 522)

Aspect (% area in each aspect class)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

N

25

14

28

31

NE

71

46

44

44

E

0

5

15

16

SE

1

1

1

5

S

0

0

0

0

SW

0

9

0

0

W

0

15

3

0

NW

3

10

8

5

Slope steepness(% area in each slope class)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

0%-30%

37

49

24

75

30%-60%

61

51

69

24

>60%

2

0

8

1

Soil series (% area in each soil series or complex that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

NOTE: soil series and complexes are defined in the 

Douglas County Soil Survey

- Orford (72%); Gustin-Orford (20%); Other (8%)

- Gustin-Orford (43%); Orford (24%); Fernhaven (23%); Other (10%)

- Preacher-Bohannon-Digger (27%); Gustin-Orford (24%); Orford (20%); 

Fernhaven (17%), Digger-Bohannon-Umpcoos (12%)

- Gustin-Orford (91%); Other (98%)

Mean annual precipitation (inches) 70

Plant association group (% area in each group that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

- Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (50%); Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia 

nervosa-Oxalis oregana (33%); Abies grandis/Toxicodendron diversilobum

(17%)

- Abies grandis/Toxicodendron diversilobum (50%); Abies grandis/Mahonia 

nervosa-Gaultheria shallon (31%); Tsuga heterophylla/Achlys triphylla-dry 

(13%); Other (6%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia nervosa-Oxalis oregana (31%); Tsuga 

heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (25%); Pseudotsuga menziesii/Holodiscus 

discolor-Whipplea modesta (13%); Abies grandis/Toxicodendron 

diversilobum (13%); Abies grandis/Mahonia nervosa-Gaultheria shallon

(13%);

- Abies grandis/Mahonia nervosa-Gaultheria shallon (54%); Abies grandis/

Toxicodendron diversilobum (31%); Other (15%)

Site index (Kings) 120
Appendixes 113

3. Site planning

RMP (name and date) Roseburg District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, June 

1995

RMP land use allocations Matrix (General Forest), Riparian Reserve

Watershed analysis (name and date) Upper Umpqua, 2003

LSR assessment (name and date) South Coast-Northern Klamath, May 1998

Environmental assessment

 - Name

 - Number

 - Date decision document signed

O.M. Hubbard

OR104-95-10

09/26/1995

Site potential tree height (feet) 180

Aerial photography (years available) Standard (1:12,000) - 1964, 1970, 1978, 1983, 1989, 1994, 1999; Large scale 

- 2000

4. Study design

Site selection criteria Large (>200 acres), relatively uniform conifer stand, 40-50-years-old with no past 

commercial thinning, economically viable, streams available for riparian buffer 

studies

Treatment assignment (rationale)

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

 - Control

Assigned by default, no streams present or needed

Assigned because unit contains streams for alternative riparian buffer treatments

Placed where a stream is present to create additional sampling opportunities for 

the microclimate study; gentle topography facilitated implementation of this 

complex treatment

Unit contains streams for the riparian buffer studies and avoids road construction

Note: First priority was to select two units with streams for the moderate and 

control treatments to accommodate the riparian buffer studies

Subtreatment location (rationale)

 - Leave islands

 - Patch cuts

 - Variable thinning density areas

Placed to avoid logging conflicts

Placed to facilitate first entry, but placement of some patch cuts near landings may 

have rendered future entries more difficult

Placed to facilitate efficient logging

Nonstandard treatments (type, location, rationale) 1. Three sets of paired plots (1/10 acre each) from an old BLM precommercial 

thinning study (established 1970) are present in the study area, one pair in each 

of the variable, moderate and control treatments; trees are marked with one inch 

circular metal tags; plots were treated as leave islands
114  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

5. Unit history

A. Pre-DMS

Regeneration harvest method Clearcut (1953-1955) following wildfire (August 1951)

Regeneration method Artificial regeneration:

- 1955, Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine (off-site) in section 24 & north half 

of section 19

- 1956, Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine (off-site) in south half of section 19

- 1960, Douglas-fir in south half of section 19 (54 acres within the study site)

- 1963, spot seeding of ponderosa pine (off-site) in south half of section 19 

(14 acres within the study site)

Post-harvest slash treatment None

Precommercial thinning 1970, 12’ x 12’ spacing

Prior commercial thinning None

Comments

B. DMS - first treatment

Marking guidelines Standard DMS (see initial study plan, Appendix C) with the following 

specifications:

- Largest, best-formed conifers were left on the spacing necessary to achieve 

the target density regardless of species

Timber Sale

 - Sale name

 - Sale number

 - Sale award date

 - Sale closing date

 - Sale price for study units, total for all species and sizes

O.M. Hubbard Thinning

OR100-TS96-41

11/03/95

12/14/98

$422,742

Logging dates

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

07/1997 - 11/1997

07/1997 - 11/1997

07/1997 - 11/1997

Logging systems

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

Cable (80%), tractor (20%)

Cable (85%), tractor (15%)

Tractor (85%), cable (15%)

Merchantability standards Minimum diameter limit set at 6 inches DBH; purchaser was allowed but not 

required to cut submerchantable trees

Slash treatment Slash within 25 feet of roads and in patch cuts was piled 01/1998 and burned 

in 12/1998; some patch cuts that had already been planted were not burned

Underplanting date 12/1998

Comments Although there are no designated off-road vehicle trails, such vehicles are 

occasionally driven through the study site
Appendixes 11

5

6. Acreage table

Treatment and subtreatment Acres (Hectares) % Treatment

Area

Control

- Unthinned 38.8 (15.7) 100.0

High density

- Thinned (120 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Riparian buffers

Total

39.1(15.8)

4.3 (1.7)

17.3 (7.0)

60.7 (24.5)

64.4

7.1

28.5

100.0

Moderate density

- Thinned (80 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Patch cuts

- Riparian buffers

Total

64.9 (26.2)

3.2 (1.3)

9.0 (3.6)

20.4 (8.3)

97.4 (39.4)

66.6

3.3

9.2

20.9

100.0

Variable density

- Thinned (120 TPA)

- Thinned (80 TPA)

- Thinned (40 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Patch cuts

- Riparian buffers

Total

12.6 (5.1)

15.4 (6.2)

3.4 (1.4)

4.9 (2.0)

4.5 (1.8)

8.4 (3.4)

49.4 (20.0)

25.6

31.2

6.9

10.0

9.2

17.1

100.0

Total 246.2 (99.6)
116  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

10

15

T

e

n

hig

h

D

e

n

sit

y

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

a

n

d

Rip

a

ria

n

B

u

f

f

e

r

S

t

u

d

y

A

r

e

a

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 250

Feet

T. 15 S., R. 7 W.,

Section 10, 15

W.M. Oregon, U

S

A

Treatment Type

ControlHighModerateVariable

C

ontrol

Unthinned

High Density

120 TPALeave IslandRiparian Buffer

M

oderate Density

Patch Opening80 TPALeave IslandRiparian Buffer

Variable Density

Patch Opening40 TPA80 TPA120 TPALeave IslandRiparian Buffer

Aquatic Vertebrate TransectsUnderplantingsTreatment PlotsThinning PlotsStreamsSectionRoads

Land O

wnership

BLM

O&C Land

Private

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate usewith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. Thisinformation may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This productwas developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land ManagementOregon State Office

Tenhigh
Ten High

Compiled by: Peter O’Toole (BLM, Eugene District), 

Sharmila Premdas (BLM, Eugene District)

1. Site location

Township 15 South

Range 07 West

Section 10, 15

Latitude N44o16’50.0”

Longitude W123o31’06.0”

BLM District Eugene

BLM Resource Area Siuslaw

County Lane, Benton

Appendixes 117
118  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

2. Site environment

Surface geology (% area in each type that occupies >10% 

of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

- Tyee Formation (100%)

- Mafic intrusions (63%); Tyee Formation (37%)

- Mafic intrusions (66%); Tyee Formation (34%)

- Tyee Formation (100%)

Elevation range (feet, (meters))

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

1,263 - 2,064 (385 - 629)

1,480 - 1,998 (451 - 609)

1,260 - 2,854 (384 - 870)

1,322 - 2,123 (403 - 647)

Aspect (% area in each aspect class)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

N

1

8

5

15

NE

26

28

4

34

E

21

5

6

26

SE

14

14

29

20

S

20

43

45

4

SW

16

3

11

0

W

2

0

0

0

NW

0

0

1

1

Slope steepness(% area in each slope class)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

0%-30%

29

18

36

34

30%-60%

66

38

48

56

>60%

5

45

16

11

Soil series (% area in each soil series or complex that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

NOTE: soil series and complexes are defined in the Lane 

County and Benton County Soil Surveys

- Blachly-Kilowan (97%); Other (3%)

- Blachly-Kilowan (40%); Harslow-Klistan-Rock (29%); Caterl-LaderlyRomanose (26%); Other (5%)

- Laderly-Murtip-Giveout (30%); Caterl-Laderly-Romanose (22%); BlachlyKilowan (21%); Caterl-Murtip-Laderly (21%); Other (6%)

- Blachly-Kilowan (64%); Honeygrove-Peavine (20%); ChintiminiGrassmountain (16%)

Mean annual precipitation (inches) 95

Plant association group (% area in each group that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - High density treatment

 - Moderate density treatment

 - Variable density treatment

- Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia nervosa-Oxalis oregana (57%); Tsuga 

heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (43%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia nervosa-Oxalis oregana (55%); Tsuga 

heterophylla/Achlys triphylla-dry (27%); Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis 

oregana (18%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia nervosa-Oxalis oregana (67%); Tsuga 

heterophylla/Achlys triphylla-dry (33%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (67%); Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia 

nervosa-Oxalis oregana (33%)

Site index (Kings) 125
Appendixes 119

3. Site planning

RMP (name and date) Eugene District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, June 

1995

RMP land use allocations Matrix (General Forest), Riparian Reserve

Watershed analysis (name and date) Upper Lake Creek, 1995

LSR assessment (name and date) N/A

Environmental assessment

 - Name

 - Number

 - Date decision document signed

The Ten High Density Management Study and Commercial Thinning

OR090-98-11

04/14/1998

Site potential tree height (feet) 200

Aerial photography (years available) Standard (1:12000) - 1984, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2002

4. Study design

Site selection criteria Site met minimum unit size and age range criteria, economically viable; streams 

available for the riparian buffer studies; met goal for an interior Coast Range site 

in the matrix land use allocation

Treatment assignment (rationale)

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

 - Control

Default after the other three treatments were assigned

Unit best for alternative riparian buffer treatments because of multiple stream 

reaches

This unit contains a stream to provide additional sampling opportunities for the 

microclimate study

This unit contains a stream for the riparian buffer studies, and would have resulted 

in significantly greater soil disturbance if it were selected for an active treatment

Note: First priority was to select two units with streams for the moderate and 

control treatments to accommodate the riparian buffer studies

Subtreatment location (rationale)

 - Leave islands

 - Patch cuts

 - Variable thinning density areas

Distributed throughout study units to maximize horizontal diversity and facilitate 

efficient logging

Distributed throughout study units to maximize horizontal diversity and facilitate 

efficient logging; two one-acre patch cuts in the moderate density unit, and two 

1⁄2-acre patch cuts in the variable density unit, were placed for the microclimate 

study

Interspersed to maximize horizontal diversity and facilitate efficient logging

Nonstandard treatments (type, location, rationale) 1. Two riparian buffer treatments (one-tree height, and streamside) are located in 

two different thinning units to the west of the primary study units; units do not 

contain leave islands or patch cuts and are only being sampled as part of the 

riparian buffer studies
120 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

5. Unit history

A. Pre-DMS

Regeneration harvest method Clearcut (1946)

Regeneration method Natural

Post-harvest slash treatment None

Precommercial thinning 1972

Prior commercial thinning None

B. DMS

Marking guidelines Standard DMS (see initial study plan, Appendix C)

Timber sale

- Sale name

- Sale number

- Sale award date

- Sale closing date

- Sale price for study units, total for all species and sizes

Ten High

ORO90-TS98-118

08/13/1998

09/08/2004

$888,053

Treatment date

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

04-08/1999

05-07/1999

01-03/2000

Logging systems

 - High retention unit

 - Moderate retention unit

 - Variable retention unit

Cable yard

Cable yard

Cable yard

Merchantability standards Purchaser option to leave or take all designated trees above 6” DBH

Slash treatment Slash piles were burnt on landings and in the patch cuts

Underplanting date 02/2001

Comments None
Appendixes 

121

6. Acreage table

Treatment and subtreatment Acres (Hectares) % Treatment

Area

Control

- Unthinned 42.5 (17.2) 100.0

High density

- Thinned (120 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Riparian buffers

Total

41.0 (16.6)

1.5 (0.6)

11.6 (4.7)

54.0 (21.9)

75.9

2.7

21.4

100.0

Moderate density

- Thinned (80 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Patch cuts

- Riparian buffers

Total

134.5 (54.5)

5.3 (2.1)

5.2 (2.1)

25.3 (10.2)

170.3 (68.9)

79.0

3.1

3.0

14.9

100.0

Variable density

- Thinned (120 TPA)

- Thinned (80 TPA)

- Thinned (40 TPA)

- Leave islands

- Patch cuts

- Riparian buffers

Total

18.1 (7.3)

21.2 (8.6)

5.2 (2.1)

4.7 (1.9)

4.4 (1.8)

3.6 (1.5)

57.2 (23.2)

31.7

37.1

9.1

8.2

7.6

6.3

100.0

Total 324.0 (131.1)
122  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

3

5

3

6

2

6

2

5

Blu

e

R

e

t

r

o

D

e

n

sit

y

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

a

n

d

Rip

a

ria

n

B

u

f

f

e

r

S

t

u

d

y

A

r

e

a

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 250

Feet

T. 26 S., R. 12 W.,

Section 25, 26, 35, 36

W.M. Oregon, U

S

A

Tre

atm

e

nt Ty

p

e

s

ControlRe-thin

Thinning PlotsSectionMountain Bike TrailsRoadStreams

L

a

n

d

O

w

n

ers

hip

BLM

Coos Bay Wagon Road

BLM

O

&

C Land

Private

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate usewith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. Thisinformation may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This productwas developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land ManagementOregon State Office

Blue Retro
Appendixes 123

Rethinning Sites

Blue Retro

Compiled by: Frank Price (BLM, Coos Bay District)

1. Site location

Township 26 South

Range 12 West

Section 25, 26, 35, 36

Latitude N43o16’49.0”

Longitude W124o04’57.0”

BLM District Coos Bay

BLM Resource Area Umpqua

County Coos
124  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

2. Site environment

Surface geology (% area in each type that occupies >10% 

of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

- Volcanic member of the Roseburg Formation (100%)

- Volcanic member of the Roseburg Formation (100%)

Elevation range (feet, (meters))

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

1,499 - 1,588 (457 - 484)

1,385 - 1,585 (422 - 483)

Aspect (% area in each aspect class)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

N

17

10

NE

43

16

E

11

25

SE

0

11

S

0

5

SW

0

7

W

12

18

NW

17

8

Slope steepness(% area in each slope class)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

0%-30%

98

94

30%-60%

2

6

>60%

0

0

Soil series (% area in each soil series or complex that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

NOTE: soil series and complexes are defined in the Coos 

County Soil Survey

- Blachly (100%)

- Blachly (95%); Other (5%)

Mean annual precipitation (inches) 60

Plant association group (% area in each group that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

- Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia nervosa-Oxalis oregana (67%); Tsuga 

heterophylla/Rhododendron macrophyllum-Mahonia nervosa (33%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (50%); Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia 

nervosa-Oxalis oregana (42%); Other (8%)

Site index (Kings) 133
Appendixes 125

3. Site planning

RMP (name and date) Coos Bay District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, May 

1995

RMP land use allocations Matrix (General Forest)

Watershed analysis (name and date) North Fork Coquille, 2002

LSR assessment (name and date) N/A

Environmental assessment

 - Name

 - Number

 - Date decision document signed

Blue Retro CT

OR125-97-19

07/17/97

Site potential tree height (feet) 220

Aerial photography (years available) Standard (1:12000) - 1950, 1959, 1964, 1970, 1976, 1981, 1986, 1992, 1997, 

2002; Panorama - 1936 (Osborne photo from Blue Ridge Lookout shows 

the project area after logging but before the Fairview Fire)

4. Study design

Site selection criteria Approximately 50-acres of relatively homogeneous, contiguous conifers; stand 

must have been commercially thinned previously, and sufficiently dense to merit 

a second commercial thinning

Treatment assignment (rationale)

 - Rethin unit

 - Control

Random

Random

Nonstandard treatments (type, location, rationale) None
126  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

5. Unit history

A. Pre-DMS

Regeneration harvest method Exact logging methods and dates are unknown, although photography shows 

railroad logging was complete by 1936. Timber in section 35 was sold 

under a timber patent in 1926; timber in section 25 was sold under timber 

patent in 1931; sale dates for sections 26 and 36 are unknown

Regeneration method Natural, established in the 1940s

Post-harvest slash treatment Not known

Precommercial thinning None

Prior commercial thinning Blue Ridge Eastside Thinning sale (TS80-16), logging completed in 1982 by 

tractor; trees were thinned from below retaining the best-formed conifers; 

an average of 59 trees per acre were removed averaging 7.7 MBF/acre; 

hardwoods were only retained where there were no suitable conifers on the 

desired spacing

Comments The project area burned in 1936 during the Fairview Fire; the federal 

government received sections 26 and 36 through a land exchange in 1948

B. DMS

Marking guidelines Standard DMS (see initial study plan, Appendix C), except that all Douglasfirs 10” or less were reserved from cutting

Timber Sale

- Sale name

- Sale number

- Sale award date

- Sale closing date

- Sale price for study units, total for all species and sizes

Blue Retro

OR120-97-07

08/27/97

08/17/99

$266,935

Treatment date 01-03/1999

Logging system Cable yard

Merchantability standards Minimum diameter limit set at 10 inches DBH

Slash treatment Hand pile and burn all logging debris 0.5 inches to 3.0 inches in diameter 

within 25 feet of road 26-12-25.0 and road 26-12-35.4

Comments 1. All minor tree species, and all existing snags and down wood were reserved 

from cutting to provide structural diversity; 

2. Felling and yarding operations were not permitted from March 1 to June 30, 

when the bark is most vulnerable to logging damage
Appendixes 127

6. Acreage table

Treatment and subtreatment Acres (Hectares) % Treatment

Area

Control

- Once thinned area 15.4 (6.2) 100.0

Rethin

- Rethinned area 47.6 (19.3) 100.0

Total 63.0 (25.5)
128  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

3

10

LITTLE W

OLF

CREEK

Lit

tle

W

olf

D

e

n

sit

y

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

a

n

d

Rip

a

ria

n

B

u

f

f

e

r

S

t

u

d

y

A

r

e

a

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 250

Feet

T. 25 S., R. 8 W.,

Section 3,10

W.M. Oregon, U

S

A

Tre

atm

e

nt Ty

p

e

ControlRe-thinThinning PlotsSectionRoadsStreams

L

a

n

d

O

w

n

ers

hip

BLM

O

&

C Land

Private

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate usewith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. Thisinformation may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This productwas developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land ManagementOregon State Office

Little Wolf
Appendixes 129

Little Wolf

Compiled by: Craig Kintop (BLM, Roseburg District)

1. Site location

Township 25 South

Range 08 West

Section 3, 10

Latitude N43o25’20.0”

Longitude W123o37’45.0”

BLM District Roseburg

BLM Resource Area Swiftwater

County Douglas

2. Site environment

Surface geology (% area in each type that occupies >10% 

of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

- Yamhill Formation and related rocks (100%)

- Yamhill Formation and related rocks (100%)

Elevation range (feet, (meters))

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

538 - 896 (164 - 273)

525 - 938 (160 - 286))

Aspect (% area in each aspect class)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

N

0

0

NE

0

0

E

0

0

SE

6

37

S

60

57

SW

30

6

W

4

0

NW

0

0

Slope steepness(% area in each slope class)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

0%-30%

43

18

30%-60%

44

63

>60%

13

20

Soil series (% area in each soil series or complex that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

NOTE: soil series and complexes are defined in the 

Douglas County Soil Survey

- Rosehaven-Atring (54%); Rosehaven (46%)

- Rosehaven (81%); Rosehaven-Atring (16%); Other (3%)

Mean annual precipitation (inches) 70

Plant association group (% area in each group that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

- Tsuga heterophylla/Achlys triphylla-dry (40%); Abies grandis/Mahonia 

nervosa-Gaultheria shallon (20%); Pseudotsuga menziesii/Holodiscus 

discolor-Whipplea modesta (20%); Pseudotsuga menziesii/Toxicodendron 

diversilobum (20%)

- Pseudotsuga menziesii/Toxicodendron diversilobum (54%); Abies grandis/

Mahonia nervosa-Gaultheria shallon (23%); Abies grandis/Toxicodendron 

diversilobum (15%); Other (8%)

Site index (Kings) 105
130 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

3. Site planning

RMP (name and date) Roseburg District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, June 

1995

RMP land use allocations Late-Successional Reserve, Riparian Reserve

Watershed analysis (name and date) Upper Umpqua, 2003

LSR assessment (name and date) South Coast-Northern Klamath, May 1998

Environmental assessment

 - Name

 - Number

 - Date decision document signed

Little Wolf Density Management

OR104-97-03

04/29/1997

Site potential tree height (feet) 180

Aerial photography (years available) Standard (1:12000) - 1964, 1970, 1978, 1983, 1989, 1994, 1999; Large scale 

- 2000

4. Study design

Site selection criteria Approximately 50-acres of relatively homogeneous, contiguous conifers; stand 

must have been commercially thinned previously, and sufficiently dense to merit 

a second commercial thinning; one of the young stand retrospective study sites 

(Bailey and Tappeiner)

Treatment assignment (rationale)

 - Rethin unit

 - Control

Random

Random

Nonstandard treatments (type, location, rationale) None
Appendixes 131

5. Unit history

A. Pre-DMS

Regeneration harvest method Wildfire origin between 1900 and 1914 (exact date unknown)

Regeneration method Natural

Post-harvest slash treatment None

Precommercial thinning None

Prior commercial thinning Little Wolf Thinning, Sale (OR100-TS8-20); awarded February 1978, 

terminated December 1981; prescription was to thin from below and 

remove approximately 40% of the basal area; an additional 15% of 

the basal area was removed due to excessive logging damage; many 

sub-merchantable trees (<6 inches DBH) survived logging and remain 

in the stand; due to a drop in the market conditions near the end of the 

contract a small area along the east section line was never logged; 85% 

of removed trees were less than 12 inches DBH

Comments None

B. DMS

Marking guidelines Standard DMS (see initial study plan, Appendix C)

Timber Sale

- Sale name

- Sale number

- Sale award date

- Sale closing date

- Sale price for study units, total for all species and sizes

Little Wolf O.M. Hubbard Thinning

OR100-TS97-09

August 22, 1997

October 19, 1998

$31,161

Treatment date 07/1998-08/1998

Logging system Cable yard

Merchantability standards Minimum diameter limit set at 6 inches DBH

Slash treatment None

Comments None

6. Acreage table

Treatment and subtreatment Acres (Hectares) % Treatment

Area

Control

- Once thinned area 18.4 (7.5) 100.0

Rethin

- Rethinned area 22.9 (9.3) 100.0

Total 41.3 (16.7)
132  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

K NI G CREEK

P

e

r

kin

s

C

r

e

e

k

D

e

n

sit

y

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

a

n

d

Rip

a

ria

n

B

u

f

f

e

r

S

t

u

d

y

A

r

e

a

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 250

Feet

T. 21 S., R. 2 W., Section 27

W.M. Oregon, U

S

A

Tre

atm

e

nt

C

ontrol

R

ethin

C

o

ntrol

N

e

v

er Thinned

Once

Thinned

Le

a

v

e Island

R

e

T

hin

4

0

T

PA

Le

a

v

e Island

Riparian BufferAquatic V

ertebrate

Transects

Thinning PlotsR

o

ads

Stre

a

ms

L

a

n

d

O

w

n

ers

hip

BLM

O

&

C Land

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate usewith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. Thisinformation may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This productwas developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land ManagementOregon State Office

Perkins Creek
Appendixes 133

Perkins Creek

Compiled by: Peter O’Toole (BLM, Eugene District), Sharmila Premdas (BLM, Eugene District)

1. Site location

Township 21 South

Range 02 West

Section 27

Latitude N43o42’51.0”

Longitude W122o54’47.0”

BLM District Eugene

BLM Resource Area Upper Willamette

County Lane

2. Site environment

Surface geology (% area in each type that occupies >10% 

of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

- Fischer and Eugene Formations and correlative rocks (100%)

- Fischer and Eugene Formations and correlative rocks (90%); sedimentary 

and volcaniclastic rocks (10%)

Elevation range (feet, (meters))

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

1,467 - 2,093 (447 - 638)

1,519 - 2,133 (463 - 650)

Aspect (% area in each aspect class)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

N

24

25

NE

28

19

E

28

15

SE

7

0

S

0

0

SW

0

0

W

1

1

NW

12

40

Slope steepness(% area in each slope class)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

0%-30%

83

79

30%-60%

16

21

>60%

1

0

Soil series (% area in each soil series or complex that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

NOTE: soil series and complexes are defined in the Lane 

County Soil Survey

- Peavine (92%); Other (8%)

- Peavine (79%); Honeygrove (16%); Other (5%)

Mean annual precipitation (inches) 57

Plant association group (% area in each group that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

- Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia nervosa-Oxalis oregana (58%); Tsuga 

heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (25%); Other (17%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Mahonia nervosa-Oxalis oregana (67%); Tsuga 

heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (17%); Tsuga heterophylla/Achlys triphylladry (17%)

Site index (Kings) 107
134  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

3. Site planning

RMP (name and date) Eugene District Record of Decision and Resource Management 

Plan, June 1995

RMP land use allocations Matrix, Riparian Reserve

Watershed analysis (name and date) Row River, 1995

LSR assessment (name and date) N/A

Environmental assessment

 - Name

 - Number

 - Date decision document signed

Perkins Creek Density Management

OR090-98-9

08/30/1998

Site potential tree height (feet) 200

Aerial photography (years available) Standard (1:12000) - 1995, 2000, 2002

4. Study design

Site selection criteria Approximately 50 acres of relatively homogeneous, contiguous 

conifers; stand must have been commercially thinned previously, and 

sufficiently dense to merit a second commercial thinning; one of the 

young stand retrospective study sites (Bailey and Tappeiner)

Treatment assignment (rationale)

 - Rethin unit

 - Control

Unit had multiple stream reaches for the riparian buffer study

Default unit

Nonstandard treatments (type, location, rationale) 1. Unthinned reserves in rethin treatment - Prophysaon dubium – reserve 

three of four sites with 1⁄4-acre leave patch; Prophysaon coeruleum – 

reserve one of two sites with 1⁄4-acre leave patch; Pityopus californica 

– 60 foot radius buffer; Achlorophyllous plants – maintain closed 

canopy with two 1⁄2-acre leave patches

2. There is an additional adjacent area from the same initial stand that has 

never been thinned and is considered part of this study site; contains 

vegetation plots

3. Rethin treatment contains alternative riparian buffer widths for the 

riparian buffer study
Appendixes 135

5. Unit history

A. Pre-DMS

Regeneration harvest method Seed tree harvest occurred in one or more entries (1920s); 

seed trees removed in 1980

Regeneration method Natural

Post-harvest slash treatment None

Precommercial thinning None

Prior commercial thinning Perkins Creek Thinning (1980); thin from below to 

approximately 100 Douglas-fir per acre (120 square 

feet of basal area), evenly spaced, hardwoods retained

B. DMS

Marking guidelines Standard DMS (see initial study plan, Appendix C)

Timber Sale

- Sale name

- Sale number

- Sale award date

- Sale closing date

- Sale price for study units, total for all species and sizes

Perkins Creek

ORO90-TS98-352

12/98

12/28/00

$283,108

Treatment date 12/1999 - 03/2000

Logging system Cable yard

Merchantability standards Purchaser option to leave or take all designated trees 

above 6” DBH

Slash treatment Slash piles were burnt on landings

Comments None

6. Acreage table

Treatment and subtreatment Acres (Hectares) % Treatment

Area

Control

- Once thinned area

- Leave islands

Total

99.3 (40.2)

3.5 (1.4)

102.8 (41.6)

96.6

3.4

100.0

Rethin

- Rethinned area

- Leave islands

- Riparian buffers

Total

89.5 (36.2)

3.4 (1.4)

23.4 (9.5)

116.2 (47.0)

77.0

2.9

20.1

100.0

Total 219.0 (88.6)

Note: Perkins Creek is unique among the rethinning sites in that it had leave islands left unthinned when the initial 

thin was implemented; Perkins Creek is also a riparian buffer study site.
136  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan

af c M Cll eer k

a C all ah Cn

eer k

Sand Creek

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 250

Feet

T. 8 S., R. 7 W., Section 31

W.M. Oregon, U

S

A

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy,reliability, or completeness of these data for individual or aggregate usewith other data. Original data were compiled from various sources. Thisinformation may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This productwas developed through digital means and may be updated without notification.

United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land ManagementOregon State Office

Sand

Creek

Treatment Type

ControlRethinThinning PlotsRoadStreams

Land O

wnership

BLM

O&C Land

Private

S

a

n

d

C

r

e

e

k

D

e

n

sit

y

M

a

n

a

g

e

m

e

n

t

a

n

d

Rip

a

ria

n

B

u

f

f

e

r

S

t

u

d

y

A

r

e

a
Appendixes 137

Sand Creek

Compiled by: Hugh Snook (BLM, Salem District)

1. Site location

Township 08 South

Range 07 West

Section 31

Latitude N44o50’05.0”

Longitude W123o35’26.0”

BLM District Salem

BLM Resource Area Mary’s Peak

County Polk

2. Site environment

Surface geology (% area in each type that occupies 

>10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

- Tyee Formation (100%)

- Tyee Formation (100%)

Elevation range (feet, (meters))

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

1,375 - 1,611 (419 - 491) 

1,339 - 1,697 (408 - 517)

Aspect (% area in each aspect class)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

N

3

3

NE

4

1

E

41

7

SE

44

12

S

4

11

SW

2

17

W

2

14

NW

1

35

Slope steepness(% area in each slope class)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

0%-30%

56

53

30%-60%

40

47

>60%

4

1

Soil series (% area in each soil series or complex that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

NOTE: soil series and complexes are defined in the 

Polk County Soil Survey

- Bohannon (100%)

- Bohannon (76%); Astoria (24%)

Mean annual precipitation (inches) 115

Plant association group (% area in each group that 

occupies >10% of the treatment area)

 - Control

 - Rethin treatment

- Tsuga heterophylla/Vaccinium alaskaense-Oxalis oregana (67%); Tsuga 

heterophylla/Oxalis oregana (33%)

- Tsuga heterophylla/Rubus spectabilis-Acer circinatum (33%); Tsuga 

heterophylla/Vaccinium alaskaense-Oxalis oregana (33%); Tsuga heterophylla/

Oxalis oregana (25%); Other (9%)

Site index (Kings) 130
138  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan 

3. Site planning

RMP (name and date) Salem District Record of Decision and Resource Management 

Plan, May 1995

RMP land use allocations North Coast Adaptive Management Area

Watershed analysis (name and date) Upper Siletz, 1996

LSR assessment (name and date) N/A

Environmental assessment

 - Name

 - Number

 - Date decision document signed

Callahan Creek Adaptive Management Project

OR-080-96-12

03/11/96

Site potential tree height (feet) 220

Aerial photography (years available) Standard (1:12000) - 1977, 1982, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003; 

orthophoto - 1993, 2002 (Weyerhaeuser Company provided)

4. Study design

Site selection criteria Approximately 50 acres of relatively homogeneous, contiguous 

conifers; stand must have been commercially thinned previously, and 

sufficiently dense to merit a second commercial thinning; North Coast 

Adaptive Management Area land use allocation encourages research; 

part of a larger thinning project (Callahan Creek)

Treatment assignment (rationale)

 - Rethin unit

 - Control

Random

Random

Nonstandard treatments (type, location, rationale) None
5. Unit history

A. Pre-DMS

Regeneration harvest method Clearcut, approximately 1920

Regeneration method Natural

Post-harvest slash treatment Unknown

Precommercial thinning None

Prior commercial thinning Thinned from below in 1975, leaving approximately 114 

TPA (approximately 139 TPA were removed with an 

average DBH of 10 inches); few remaining legacy trees 

were also removed in this sale

Comments None

B. DMS

Marking guidelines Thin from below to leave 45 dominant and co-dominant 

TPA; thinning to be patchy, removing more trees where 

understory exists, and leaving more trees where there 

the understory is sparse; where possible, mark groups 

of trees around snags to protect them during logging; 

do not mark conifers as leave trees in root rot pockets; 

leave all cull trees, multiple top trees, wolf trees or 

other wildlife habitat trees; leave snags, overstory 

hardwoods, and Pacific yew; favor hemlock and cedar 

to leave

Timber Sale

- Sale name

- Sale number

- Sale award date

- Sale closing date

- Sale price for study units, total for all species and sizes

Sand Creek

96-313

09/25/96

07/14/98

$736,564

Treatment date 07/29/97-12/12/97

Logging system Skyline yarding (44 acres), tractor yarding (7 acres)

Merchantability standards Minimum diameter limit set at 7 inches DBH

Slash treatment All slash within 30 feet of landings was piled (fall 1997) 

and burned (fall 1998)

Comments 1. Entry permits required in the Luckiamute Closure and 

Cooperative Travel Management Area

6. Acreage table

Treatment and subtreatment Acres (Hectares) % Treatment

Area

Control

- Once thinned area 11.1 (4.5) 100.0

Rethin

- Rethinned area 49.9 (20.2) 100.0

Total 61.0 (24.7)

Appendixes 139
Appendix F. Density Management and 

Riparian Buffer Study Publications

Brochures

Olson, D.H. 2005 submitted. Riparian areas. In: Pilliod, D. 

and E. Wind (eds.). Habitat Management Guidelines for 

Amphibians and Reptiles in the Pacific Northwest. Partners 

in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, brochure and web 

publication.

Olson, D.H. 2005 submitted. Moist coniferous forest. In: 

Pilliod, D. and E. Wind (eds.). Habitat Management 

Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptiles in the 

Pacific Northwest. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile 

Conservation, brochure and web publication.

Olson, D. and B. Hansen. 1999. Aquatic vertebrates and 

habitats: Keel Mountain Density Management Study, in: 

Littlefield, B. and K. Searl (eds.). 1999. Young Stand 

Diversity Studies: Interpretive Guides for the Keel 

Mountain Density Management Study. USGS Biological 

Resources Division, CFER publication. 2 p.

Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Chan, Samuel, P. Anderson, J, Cissel, L. Larsen, 

C. Thompson. 2004. Variable density management in 

riparian reserves: lesson learned from an operational study 

in managed forests of western Oregon, USA. Forest Snow 

and Landscape Research 78(1/2):151-172.

Cunningham, Patrick G. 2002. A survey of research 

on riparian responses to silviculture. In: Johnson, 

A.C.; Haynes, R.W.; Monserud, R.A.; eds. Congruent 

Management of Multiple Resources: Proceedings from 

the Wood Compatibility Initiative Workshop; December 

5-7, 2001, Skamania Lodge, Stevenson, WA. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-563. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station: 73-79.

Hohler, David, James Sedell, and Deanna Olson. 2001. 

Aquatic conservation strategy. pp. 30-39 In: Richard W. 

Haynes and Gloria E. Prez (tech. eds.). Northwest Forest 

Plan Research Synthesis. Gen. Tech. Report, PNW-GTR498, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR.

Nauman, R., D.H. Olson, L. Ellenburg, and B. Hansen. 1999. 

Plethodon dunni (Dunn’s salamander). Reproduction. 

Herpetological Review 30: 89-90.

Neitlich, Peter N., Bruce McCune. 1997. Hotspots of 

epiphytic lichen diversity in two young managed forests. 

Conservation Biology 11(1):172-182.

Norvell, Lorelei L, R. Exeter. 2004. Ectomycorrhizal 

epigeous basidiomycete diversity in Oregon Coast Range 

Pseudotsuga menziesii forests — preliminary observations. 

In Fungi in Forest Ecosystems: Systematics, Diversity, and 

Ecology, ed. by Cathy L. Cripps. The New York Botanical 

Garden, p. 159-189.

Norvell, Lorelei L; Redhead, Scott A. 2000. Stropharia 

albivelata and its basionym Pholiota albivelata. Mycotaxon 

76: 315-320.

Olson, D.H., S.S. Chan, P. Cunningham, B. Hansen, A. 

Moldenke, R. Progar, P.S. Muir, B. McCune, A. Rosso, and 

E.B. Peterson. 2000. Characterizing managed headwater 

forests - integration of stream, riparian, and upslope habitats 

and species in western Oregon: Companion projects to 

the BLM Density Management Studies. p. 539-540. In: 

Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters 1999 

National Convention, 11-15 September, Portland, OR. SAF 

Publication 00-1, Bethesda, MD; ISBN 0-939970-81-3.

Olson, Deanna H., Samuel S. Chan, and Charles R. 

Thompson. 2002. Riparian buffers and thinning designs 

in western Oregon headwaters accomplish multiple 

resource objectives. In: Johnson, A.C.; Haynes, R.W.; 

Monserud, R.A.; eds. Congruent Management of Multiple 

Resources: Proceedings from the Wood Compatibility 

Initiative Workshop; December 5-7, 2001, Skamania Lodge, 

Stevenson, WA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-563. Portland, 

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

Northwest Research Station: 81-91.

Olson, D.H., S.S. Chan, G. Weaver, P. Cunningham, A. 

Moldenke, R. Progar, P.S. Muir, B. McCune, A. Rosso, E.B. 

Peterson. 2000. Characterizing stream, riparian, upslope 

habitats and species in Oregon managed headwater forests. 

Pp. 83-88 In: Wiggington, J. and R. Beschta (eds.). Riparian 

Ecology and Management in Multi-Land Use Watersheds. 

International conference of the American Water Resources 

Association, 30 August, Portland, OR. AWRA Publication 

TPS-00-2, Middleburg, VA. 616 pp. 

Olson, Deanna H., Richard S. Nauman, Loretta L. Ellenburg, 

Bruce P. Hansen, and Samuel S. Chan. 2005. Ensatina 

eschscholtzii nests at a managed forest site in Oregon. 

Northwestern Naturalist.

Pilz, David, Lorelei Norvell, Eric Danell, and Randy Molina. 

2003. Ecology and management of commercially harvested 

chanterelle mushrooms. PNW-GTR-576. Portland, OR: etc., 

83 p.

140 BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Progar, R.A. and A.R. Moldenke. 2002. Insect production 

from temporary and perennially flowing headwater 

streams in western Oregon. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 

17(3):391-407.

Rambo, Thomas R. and Patricia S. Muir. 1998. Forest floor 

bryophytes of Pseudotsuga menziesii-Tsuga heterophylla

stands in Oregon: influences of substrate and overstory. The 

Bryologist 101(1):116-130.

Rambo, Thomas R. and Patricia S. Muir. 1998. Bryophyte 

species associations with coarse woody debris and stand 

ages in Oregon. The Bryologist 101(3):366-376.

Rundio, David E. and Olson, Deanna H. 2001. Palatability 

of southern torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton variegatus) 

larvae to Pacific giant salamander (Dicamptodon 

tenebrosus) larvae. Journal of Herpetology 35(1): 133-136.

Rundio, David E. and Deanna H. Olson. 2003. Antipredator 

defenses of larval Pacific giant salamanders (Dicamptodon 

tenebrosus) against cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki). 

Copeia 2003(2): 392-397.

Sheridan, Chris D. and Deanna H. Olson. 2003. Amphibian 

assemblages in zero-order basins in the Oregon Coast 

Range. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 33: 1452-1477.

Sheridan, C.D. and T.A. Spies. 2005. Vegetation-environment 

relationships in zero-order basins in coastal Oregon. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Reserach 35: 340-355.

Tappeiner, J.C. II, D.H. Olson, and C.R. Thompson. 2000. 

Density management studies of western Oregon. pp. 556-

557. In: Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters 

1999 National Convention, 11-15 September, Portland, OR. 

SAF Publication 00-1, Bethesda, MD; ISBN 0-939970-81-

3.

USDA and USDI. 1996a. Riparian Reserve Evaluation 

Techniques and Synthesis. Module of the Guide to 

Watershed Analysis. Riparian Reserve Technical Team, 

Regional Ecosystem Office, Portland, OR. Interagency 

publication. 42 p.

USDA and USDI. 1996b. Species Information: Addendum to 

Appendix B, Riparian Reserve Evaluation Techniques and 

Synthesis. Module of the Guide to Watershed Analysis. 

Riparian Reserve Technical Team, Regional Ecosystem 

Office, Portland, OR. Interagency publication. 342 p.

Wender, Bryan W., C.A. Harrington, and J.C. Tappeiner. 2004. 

Flower and fruit production of understory shrubs in western 

Washington and Oregon. Northwest Science, 78 (2):124-

140.

Submitted or In Prep Papers

Olson, D.H. and C. Rugger. 2005 in prep. Effects of riparian 

management on instream and bank vertebrates in managed 

forests in western Oregon. Forest Ecology Management.

Olson, D.H. and G. Weaver. 2005 in prep. Characterization 

of headwater stream vertebrate assemblages in managed 

forests of western Oregon. Forest Ecology Managent.

Rundio, D. and D.H. Olson. 2005 in prep. Thinning effects 

on terrestrial salamanders in managed forest in Oregon. 

Northwest Science.

Weaver, G. and D.H. Olson. 2005 in prep. Sampling for 

aquatic vertebrates in managed headwater streams: variation 

in captures, relative abundance, and species composition 

by sampling method, stream type, season and spatial scale. 

Journal of Wildlife Management.

Abstracts

Chan, S.S. D. Larson, D. Olson, and B. Emmingham. 2003. 

Density management effects on stand development and 

microclimate in headwater forests of western Oregon. The 

4th North American Forest Ecology Workshop, Corvallis, 

OR. June 2003. http://wwwdata.forestry.oregonstate.edu/

nafewabs/display_select.aspx.

Moldenke, Andrew R., Robert A. Progar. and Deanna 

H. Olson. 2002. Northwest fauna in managed forested 

headwaters: invertebrates and vertebrates. Northwestern 

Naturalist 83: 77.

Morey, Steve and Deanna H. Olson. 2002. Rare salamanders 

on federal lands: 2002 research and management directions. 

Northwestern Naturalist 83: 78.

Rundio, D.E. and D.H. Olson. 2000. Palatability of southern 

torrent salamander larvae to Pacific giant salamander larvae. 

Northwestern Naturalist 81:86-87.

Norvell, Lorelei L.; Exeter, Ronald L. 1999. Oregon Douglasfir fungal communities. Abstract in Northwest Scientific 

Association 1999 Annual Meeting Bulletin: 45.

Norvell, LL; Exeter; RL. 1999. 1161 -- The Oregon Douglasfir fungal community. XVI International Botanical 

Congress: Abstracts p. 486. 

Norvell, Lorelei L.; Exeter, Ronald L. 2002. The epigeous 

ectomycorrhizal basidiomycete Douglas-fir fungal 

community in “peace” and “war”. Inoculum 53(3):47.

Appendixes 141
Norvell, Lorelei L.; Exeter, Ronald L. 2002. 547 – The 

Douglas-fir epigeous ectomycorrhizal basidiomycete 

community in the western North American Northern 

Spotted Owl zone. IMC7: Book of abstracts. Oslo [www.

uio.no/conferences/imc7]. pp. 166-67.

Olson, Deanna. 2003. Sampling stream banks. Northwestern 

Naturalist 84: 108-109.

Olson, Deanna, Samuel S. Chan, Loretta Ellenburg, and 

Cynthia Rugger. 2003. Riparian buffers within a forest 

thinning context: effects on stream amphibians and riparian 

microclimates in headwater drainages. Northwestern 

Naturalist 84: 109.

Olson, D.H. and T.M. Davis. 2000. Terrestrial salamander 

sampling: development of a monitoring program. 

Northwestern Naturalist 81: 84.

Olson, D.H., G.W. Weaver, L.L. Ellenburg, B.P. Hansen, 

and R. Thompson. 2000. Stream vertebrates in managed 

headwater streams: habitat associations of assemblages and 

species. Northwestern Naturalist 81:84.

Olson, D.H. 2005 in press. Riparian management issues for 

herpetofauna in the northwest. Northwest Naturalist 86.

Olson, D.H. and S.S. Chan. 2004. Riparian buffer widths and 

thinning: effects on headwater microclimates and aquatic 

dependent vertebrates. Northwestern Naturalist 85: 84.

Olson, D.H. and S. Chan. 2005. Effects of four riparian buffer 

treatments and thinning on microclimate and amphibians 

in western oregon headwater forests. P 369 In: Peterson, 

Charles; Maguire, Doug (eds.). Balancing Ecosystem 

Values: Innovative Experiments for Sustainable Forestry. 

Proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-635. Portland, 

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

Northwest Research Station.

Olson, D.H., S.S. Chan, L. Ellenburg, and C. Rugger. In press. 

Riparian buffers within a forest thinning context: effects on 

stream amphibians and riparian microclimates in headwater 

drainages. Invited talk: Biotic and abiotic processes in 

headwater streams session. Annual meeting of the Society 

for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology, Arcata, California, 

March 19-22. Northwestern Naturalist.

Olson, D., L. Ellenburg, and C. Rugger. 2003. Density 

management and riparian buffer studies of western Oregon: 

amphibians and fishes. The 4th North American Forest 

Ecology Workshop, Corvallis, OR. June 2003. http://

wwwdata.forestry.oregonstate.edu/nafewabs/display_select.

aspx

Rundio, David and Deanna H. Olson. 2002. Antipredator 

behaviors of Pacific giant salamander larvae against trout. 

Northwestern Naturalist 83: 83.

Rundio, David, Deanna Olson, Loretta Ellenburg, and 

Samuel Chan. 2003. Effects of forest thinning on terrestrial 

salamanders and potential benefits of riparian reserves. 

Northwestern Naturalist 84: 112.

Sheridan, Chris D. and Deanna H. Olson. 2002. Amphibian 

communities and habitat use in zero-order basins in the 

Oregon Coast Range. Northwestern Naturalist 83: 84.

Sheridan, Chris D. and Deanna H. Olson. 2003. Amphibian 

assemblages in zero-order basins in the Coast Range of 

Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 84: 114.

Thompson, Charley, Deanna H. Olson, Samuel Chan, 

Kathleen Maas-Hebner, and John Tappeiner. 2002. The 

density management and riparian buffer studies of western 

Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 83: 86.

Thompson, R., Olson, D., L Ellenburg, and B. Hansen. 

1999. Streambank plethodontids in headwater drainages. 

Northwestern Naturalist 80:133.

Weaver, G.W., D.H. Olson, L.L. Ellenburg, and B.P. Hansen. 

2000. Sampling designs for aquatic vertebrates in managed 

headwater streams. Northwestern Naturalist 81: 91. 

Weaver, G.W., D.H. Olson, L.L. Ellenburg, and B.P. Hansen. 

2000. Sampling designs for aquatic vertebrates in managed 

headwater streams. Northwestern Naturalist 81: 91. 

Wessell, Stephanie J. and Deanna H. Olson. 2001. Upslope 

leave islands as refugia for sensitive plant and animal 

species in managed forests. Northwestern Naturalist 82: 84.

Wessell, S., D.H. Olson, and R. Schmitz. 2005. Upslope leave 

islands as refugia for sensitive plant and animal species 

in managed forests. P 379 In: Peterson, Charles; Maguire, 

Doug (eds.). Balancing Ecosystem Values: Innovative 

Experiments for Sustainable Forestry. Proceedings. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-635. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.

Wessell, Stephanie J., Deanna H. Olson, and Richard A. 

Schmitz. 2005 in press. Effects of thinning on microclimate, 

plants, and low-mobility animals in managed Oregon 

forests. Northwest Naturalist 86.

Wessell, S., D. Olson, and R. Schmitz. 2003. Patch reserves 

as refugia for low-mobility species in managed forests. 

Annual Meeting of the Society for Conservation Biology, 

conservation area planning and management session. 

Duluth, MN. June 28-July 2, 2003.

Wessell, S., D. Olson, and R. Schmitz. 2003. Patch reserves as 

refugia for low-mobility species in managed forests. North 

American Forest Ecology Workshop, Corvallis, OR. June 

16-20, 2003.

142  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
Wessell, S., D. Olson, and R. Schmitz. 2003. Upslope Leave 

Islands as Refugia for Low-Mobility Species. Innovations in 

Species Conservation Symposium. Portland, Oregon. April 

28-30, 2003.

Posters

Berryman, Shanti. 2004. Characterizing vegetation response 

to variable density thinnings in young Douglas-fir forests of 

western Oregon. Balancing ecosystem values: innovative 

experiments for sustainable forestry, Portland, OR, August 

2004.

Cissel, John. 2004. Density Management Study: developing 

late-successional habitat. Balancing ecosystem values: 

innovative experiments for sustainable forestry, Portland, 

OR, August 2004.

Norvell, Lorelei, Ron Exeter. 2002. The epigeous 

ectomycorrhizal basidiomycete Douglas-fir fungal 

community in “peace” and “war.” Annual Meeting of the 

Mycological Society of America. Corvallis, Oregon.

Olson, Deanna. 2004. Effects of four riparian buffer treatments 

and thinning on microclimate and amphibians in western 

Oregon headwater forests. Balancing ecosystem values: 

innovative experiments for sustainable forestry, Portland, 

OR, August 2004.

Thompson, Charley, Deanna H. Olson, Samuel Chan, 

Kathleen Maas-Hebner, and John Tappeiner. 2002. The 

density management and riparian buffer studies of western 

Oregon.

Wessell, Stephanie J., Deanna H. Olson, and Richard A 

Schmitz. 2003. Upslope leave islands as refugia for lowmobility species. Innovations in Species Conservation: 

Integrative Approaches to Address Rarity & Risk, Portland, 

OR. April 2003.

Wessell, Stephanie. 2004. Leave islands as refugia for lowmobility species in managed forests. Balancing ecosystem 

values: innovative experiments for sustainable forestry, 

Portland, OR, August 2004.

Unpublished Reports

Cissel, J.H., P. Anderson, S. Chan, A. Moldenke, D. Olson, R. 

Progar, K. Puettmann, C. Thompson, and S. Wessell. 2004. 

Bureau of Land Management’s Density Management Study. 

Cooperative Forest Ecosystem Research (CFER) program 

fact sheet. 6 pp.

Cissel, John. 2003. Bureau of Land Management Density 

Management Study. In CFER Annual Report 2003. p. 22-

25.

Exeter, Ron, Norvell LL. 2003 (March). Key to the Ramaria of 

the Pacific Northwest.

Norvell, Lorelei L. 2000 – PNWMS/BLM Cooperative Oregon 

Douglas-fir density management – fungal community study: 

1998-1999 Annual Report. Requisitioned by BLM Botanist 

Ron Exeter; on file with the USDI-BLM Salem District 

Office. 33 pp.

Norvell LL. 2002. Oregon’s Douglas-Fir ectomycorrhizal 

fungal communities: the Green Peak density management 

study: Year 4 (2001-2002). (Unpublished report on file, 

USDI-BLM District Office, Salem, Oregon) Pacific 

Northwest Mycology Service: Portland, Oregon. 18 pp. 

September 15.

Norvell LL, Exeter RL. 2002. Oregon’s Douglas-Fir 

ectomycorrhizal fungal communities: the Green Peak 

density management study: Year 2 (1999-2000) & Year 

3 (2000-2001). (Unpublished report on file, USDIBLM District Office, Salem, Oregon) Pacific Northwest 

Mycology Service: Portland, Oregon. 72 pp.

Snook, Hugh. 2002. Bryophyte occurrence on decayed logs 

under a range of microclimate conditions. On file at the 

Salem District of the BLM. 

Appendixes 143
This page is intentionally blank.

144  BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan
For more information concerning the research in this report, contact the 

USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center

777 N.W. 9th Street, Suite 400

Corvallis, OR 97330-6169

http://fresc.usgs.gov
Printed on recycled paper

BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan Cissel and others SIR 2006 –5087