APPENDIX B

Study Plan

FOREST DYNAMICS AFTER THINNING 

AND FUEL REDUCTION IN DRY FORESTS

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 1
This study plan was peer-reviewed by the following individuals, and their comments were either 

incorporated or noted in a separate reconciliation document: 

Reviewed by: Martin Ritchie, PSW Research Station Date: Feb. 26, 2008 

Reviewed by: Steve Fitzgerald, Oregon State University Date: March 15, 2008 

Reviewed by: Rick Kelsey, PNW Research Station Date: March 12, 2008 

Reviewed by: Paul Hessburg, PNW Research Station Date: Feb. 26, 2008 

Reviewed by: Jane L. Hayes, PNW Research Station Date: March 15, 2008 

Reviewed by: Tim Max, PNW Research Station Date: March 13, 2008 

 

In addition, this study plan was the subject of a double-blind external review process with seven reviewers 

external to the Pacific Northwest Research Station, with all comments addressed in a single reconciliation 

document made part of the study file. 

 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 2 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 2
I. Problem reference 

This study plan describes research to be conducted in Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. The proposed 

work addresses questions identified within this study plan. The proposed work also establishes a 

framework for other studies to be conducted concurrently or subsequently that use treatments established 

by this study plan. These additional studies, pursued by partners and collaborators, will be guided by 

separate and distinct study plans. 

This study plan proposes a suite of treatments (vegetation manipulations) within Pringle Falls 

Experimental Forest. The treatments, in addition to providing the platform for research addressed herein, 

also address management issues within the experimental forest. These management issues are briefly 

described within this study plan, however, a full and complete analysis of these management issues is 

beyond the scope of this study plan. An environmental analysis will be conducted in partnership with the 

Deschutes National Forest and Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District to outline and consider the management 

issues, options, and environmental effects of the treatments. 

The Managing Disturbance Regimes Research, Development, and Application Program (MDR) is one of 

seven programs of the Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW). The mission of the MDR Program is to 

provide new insights and scientific knowledge about the role of natural and human-caused disturbances 

as agents of change in ecosystems, and the degree to which they can be effectively managed to achieve 

or sustain desired ecologic conditions, functions and socioeconomic values of forest and rangeland 

ecosystems. This mission is pursued primarily through: 

• creation and communication of fundamental knowledge on the nature, role and effects of 

disturbances and other change agents (e.g., climate) at varying spatial and temporal scales 

• development and dissemination of integrated resource management tools, models, strategies and 

other products based on knowledge of disturbance regimes and their manipulation 

• application and evaluation of knowledge on disturbance regimes and associated science-based 

products to resolve current and projected future land management problems. 

Work within the MDR Program is arrayed across five problems1

: 

• Issue/Problem 1: Understanding and managing wildland fire 

• Issue/Problem 2: Understanding and managing insects, pathogens and invasive species 

• Issue/Problem 3: Understanding and managing herbivory and wildlife 

• Issue/Problem 4: Understanding and managing forest and rangeland vegetation dynamics 

• Issue/Problem 5: Understanding and addressing climate change/atmospheric influences on 

ecosystems 

 

1

 MDR Charter Revision, unpublished paper (draft, December, 2007), on file, Wenatchee Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 3 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 3
This study will focus on effects of various forest vegetation manipulations, specifically treatments that 

potentially affect overstory and understory vegetation over time, and therefore addresses problem 4, 

understanding and managing forest and rangeland dynamics. Under this problem, the MDR Charter 

recognizes that forest and rangeland ecosystems have been significantly altered since Euro-Americansettlement due to modified land uses, land management practices, and disturbance regimes coupled with 

climate/weather fluctuations. In some cases, vegetation changes may have become chronic due to 

crossing of ecological thresholds that make re-attainment of historic ecosystem states either difficult or 

impossible without extensive massive management intervention. Concerns for forest and rangeland 

health have become national, regional, and local issues. Restoring resiliency of degraded forest and 

rangeland ecosystems has therefore emerged as an important national priority. Addressing this priority is 

made difficult by the incongruity between desired vegetation conditions and the conditions and patterns 

that have developed in response to land uses and management of disturbance regimes that have been 

imposed without full, integrated knowledge and due consideration of ecosystem responses. Land 

managers need information on the response dynamics of vegetation composition and pattern at multiple 

scales to define options for management that promote development of desired ecosystem attributes and 

values over time. 

In addition to improving understanding for forest vegetation dynamics, the research also will produce 

information pertinent to fuels management/fire risk (problem 1) and forest insect/disease issues (problem 

2), and may indirectly and over the longer term address herbivory and wildlife habitat (problem 3) and 

climate change issues (problem 5). 

II. Background 

Pre-Euro-American low elevation dry conifer forests of the western United States were fundamentally 

shaped by frequent low- or mixed-severity disturbances such as wildfires (Agee 1993, Taylor and Skinner 

1998, Everett et al. 2000, Ottmar and Sandberg 2001, Wright and Agee 2004, Youngblood et al. 2004, 

Hessburg et al. 2005, Arabas et al. 2006) and insect attacks (McCullough et al. 1998, Hayes and 

Daterman 2001) mediated by diverse environmental gradients of topography, soils, and weather. The 

challenge that now faces resource managers is to integrate knowledge of these same disturbances or 

their potential surrogates, coupled with poorly-defined shifts in regional climate, to better understand how 

these various agents determine forest structure and composition. 

Surface fires, ignited predominantly by lightning during the time of year when moisture content of fine 

fuels was lowest (Agee 1993, Rorig and Ferguson 1999), controlled regeneration of fire-intolerant 

species, reduced density of small-diameter stems, consumed litter and down wood, opened the stands to 

increased sunlight, led to vertical stratification of fuels by eliminating fuel ladders between the forest floor 

and the overstory canopy, and maintained relatively stable plant associations. Consequently, the 

structure of these low elevation dry forests generally consisted of open, predominantly widely spaced 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 4 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 4
medium to large and old live trees, scattered dead trees, low levels of ground fuels, and continuous low 

herbaceous understory vegetation (Wickman 1992, Agee 1994, Youngblood et al. 2004, Arabas et al. 

2006). 

Insects are major components of forest ecosystems, representing most of the biological diversity and 

affecting virtually all processes and uses. Bark beetles (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytidae) heavily 

influence the structure and function of low elevation dry conifer forests by regulating certain aspects of 

primary production, nutrient cycling, ecological succession and the size, distribution and abundance of 

forest trees (Fettig et al. 2007). While we know little about pre-Euro-American arthropod abundance and 

their interspecific relationships (Short and Negrón 2003), these forests likely supported many indigenous 

phytophagous insect species that killed trees. Phloem-boring bark beetles and cambium and wood boring 

beetles (Coleoptera: Buprestidae and Cerambycidae) were especially prevalent, with some preferring 

large, old, slow growing trees, some attacking lower boles and roots exposed after fires, some attacking 

the tops of trees weakened by fire, and others attacking trees with growth rates slowed by densitydependent competition, drought stress, or other localized disturbances that enabled the beetles to 

circumvent tree defenses (de Groot and Turgeon 1998, McCullough et al. 1998). Attacks often led to 

mortality of individual and small groups of trees, created snags, altered the accumulation of fuels and 

vegetation, and created canopy gaps that provided opportunities for new seedling cohorts (Hessburg et 

al. 1994, Hayes and Daterman 2001). 

Today, many of these same dry forests have characteristics that place them at greater risk of 

uncharacteristic disturbances. These features include an accumulated mass of down woody debris and 

continuity of the fuels mosaic at landscape scales, more small trees and fewer large trees, greater 

amounts of young multi-storied forests with fire-intolerant conifers in both understory and overstory strata, 

increased fuel ladders that contribute to greater flame lengths during fires, and new or altered forcing of 

regional climate on plant community structure and organization (Agee 1993, Covington and Moore 1994, 

Arno et al. 1997, Taylor and Skinner 1998, Harrod et al. 1999, Youngblood et al. 2004, Hessburg et al. 

2005, Stephens and Gill 2005, Youngblood et al. 2006, McKenney et al. 2007). In many dry forests of the 

Pacific Northwest, the altered fuelbeds and shifts in forest structure and composition resulted from fire 

exclusion and suppression, livestock grazing, timber management activites, and changes in climate 

(Bergoffen 1976, Steele et al. 1986, Dolph et al. 1995, Arno et al. 1997, Richardson et al. 2007). 

Increases in overall stand density over the past century have led to increased competition among trees 

for below-ground nutrients, water, and growing space. Increased competition among trees and reduced 

tree vigor increases susceptibility to attack from bark beetles and other forest insects and diseases 

(Mitchell 1990, Hessburg et al. 1994, Oliver 1995, Fettig et al. 2007). Mortality in ponderosa pine 

attributed to mountain pine beetle is positively correlated with high stand density (Sartwell and Dolph 

1976, Fettig et al. 2007). Thinning has been shown to reduce the amount of ponderosa pine mortality 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 5 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 5
caused by mountain pine beetle unless surrounding areas are allowed to develop epidemic population 

levels (Fettig et al. 2007). The mountain pine beetle often kills extensively when contiguous stands or 

landscapes become vulnerable. These changes have occurred more recently against a backdrop of 

natural and human-caused climate change that may first be manifest in the distribution of herbaceous 

species and woody shrubs, and may eventually result in a redistribution of tree species (McKenney et al. 

2007, Richardson et al. 2007). Collectively, these altered structural conditions contribute to increased 

probability of multiple, interacting stresses and may lead to altered or new disturbance regimes. 

In the past two decades, unusually large and catastrophic wildfires across the western United States have 

heightened public awareness of forest ecosystems and raised concern for forest health. There is broad 

agreement that some form of fuel reduction treatment is necessary to move stands from their current 

structure and developmental trajectory to conditions that are healthier, more resilient to fire, and which 

may incorporate natural disturbance regimes prevalent under pre-Euro-American influences (Starr et al. 

2001, Allen et al. 2002, Brown et al. 2004, Graham et al. 2004). Recent presidential initiatives such as the 

National Fire Plan, the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy, and the Healthy Forests Initiative, and 

legislation such as the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148), have promoted the 

consideration of large scale and strategically located fuel reduction and restoration projects to manage 

landscapes within the context of ecological processes (USDI and USDA 2006). These fuel reduction and 

restoration treatments often are applied in dry forests as thinning or prescribed burning projects and are 

designed to reduce surface fuels, decrease crown density while retaining large live and dead trees of fire 

resistant species, increase the height to the live crown, and promote late seral structures, with the goal of 

reducing the risk of unnaturally severe surface and crown fires (Brown et al. 2004, Agee and Skinner 

2005). Recent work within the national Fire and Fire Surrogate study has demonstrated that thinning and 

underburning result in at least short-term reductions in the mass of woody fuels and thus the potential fire 

behavior and severity (Stephens et al. in press, Youngblood et al. 2008), that there is substantial 

variability in taxa-specific responses to the treatments by small mammals and in avian composition and 

nest success and thus adaptive management approaches to wildlife may be beneficial (Converse et al. 

2006, Gaines et al. 2007, Farris et al. in press), and that the treatments have little effect on most native 

perennial shrubs and forbs but may lead to short-term increases in non-native invasive plant species 

(Youngblood et al. 2006, Metlen and Fiedler 2006, Dodson et al. 2007, Erickson and White 2007). 

There remains uncertainty in the ecological consequences of these treatments. First, responses often 

have been assessed only over the short-term. Few studies are built on platforms, such as experimental 

forests, where long-term studies with periodic remeasurements can be pursued. Second, treatments often 

have been designed to restore fuelbed conditions or forest composition and structure to historical 

conditions, but have ignored the risks, uncertainties, and benefits of multiple environmental stresses 

(Parker et al. 2006). For example, recent work suggests that in forests where water was not limiting, 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 6 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 6
climate change over the past six decades may have had a generally positive effect on forest productivity 

(Boisvenue and Running 2006), yet over the most recent two decades, many western forests have 

experienced increased tree mortality due to temperature-driven drought stress (van Mantgem and 

Stephenson 2007). With widespread recognition by scientists and policy makers that climate change is 

occurring, management options are needed that recognize and accommodate uncertainty in the 

manifestation of climate change. 

Knowing when and how much growing stock to manipulate in order to meet some future stand structure 

projection and prevent losses from a stand-replacement disturbance is one of the largest challenges 

facing silviculturists who work with ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). Much of the past management of 

ponderosa pine was focused on young stands. Current management is increasingly focused on producing 

larger and older trees. Reducing stand density provides growing space, water, and nutrients for the 

residual trees, and their growth affects the future stand structure directly as tree density, average stand 

diameter, crown shape, height growth, and the amount of tree mortality. Stand density index (SDI) 

(Reineke 1933) is a relative density measure based on the relationship between mean tree size and 

number of trees per unit area in a stand, and has proved useful for quantifying relative density across a 

wide variety of stand conditions because it is independent of site quality and stand age (Long and Daniel 

1990). While originally developed for single-cohort stands, it is equally relevant for multi-cohort stands 

(Shaw 2000), and can be applied to mixed species stands with consideration of individual species 

characteristics. Cochran and Barrett (1995) followed the development of young ponderosa pine stands in 

the Blue Mountains under 6 stocking levels for 24 years and determined that mean annual cubic volume 

growth was greatest when SDI was about 210, and high mortality from mountain pine beetle occurred 

when SDI was greater than 140. As part of the West-Wide Levels of Growing Stock study, Cochran and 

Barrett (1999) reported on the growth and development over 30 years for stands thinned to six levels, and 

showed that continued mortality from mountain pine beetle occurred when the SDI was above 240. 

Cochran et al. (1994) used the concepts underpinning SDI to set an upper management zone (UMZ) for 

SDI to sustain healthy stand conditions for forest stands throughout the Blue Mountains based on the 

dominant plant association. The same procedure was used to set UMZs for the Deschutes National 

Forest in central Oregon (Booser and White)2

. Upper management zones defined specifically for the 

Deschutes National Forest represent the level of stocking or relative density beyond which there is 

imminent risk of catastrophic loss of overstory trees to bark beetles. 

 

2 Booser, J, and J. White. Calculating maximum stand density indexes (SDI) for Deschutes National 

Forest plant associations. Unpublished paper, on file, Deschutes National Forest. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 7 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 7
III. Study area description 

This study is located entirely within Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. Experimental forests and ranges 

constitute a national network of outdoor laboratories designated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service for the express purpose of providing sites for research. Research use was reaffirmed 

under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978. Experimental forests and 

ranges have a rich legacy of providing information to guide forest management activities. They provide a 

unique research platform from which to address forest management questions at various scales and offer 

an important advantage for collaborative research. The PNW Station has responsibility for managing 

Pringle Falls Experimental Forest, one of a network of 81 similar experimental forests and ranges across 

the nation. Pringle Falls Experimental Forest (lat. 43°42’ N, long. 121°37’ W) lies within the Deschutes 

National Forest in central Oregon about 48 kilometers (30 miles) southwest of Bend, Oregon, and was 

established in May 1931 as a center for silviculture, forest management, and insect and disease research 

in ponderosa pine forests east of the Oregon Cascade Range. The entire experimental forest is 

addressed in the Deschutes National Forest Management Plan as a single management area, with 

Forest-level standards and guides applying when they do not conflict with research. 

The 1430 ha (3,535-acre) Lookout Mountain Unit of the experimental forest was added to the Pringle 

Butte Unit in 1936. The Lookout Mountain Unit lies on an ancient shield volcano with an upper elevation 

of 1900 m (6,223 ft). Currently, this relatively large block of closed-canopy forest has undergone little 

major disturbance since about 1845 when a single stand-replacement fire resulted in the establishment of 

dense ponderosa pine at lower elevations and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), grand fir (Abies 

grandis), white fir (Abies concolor), sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), western white pine (Pinus monticola), 

and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) at higher elevations. These closed-canopy stands have 

grown exceptionally well, and may represent some of the most productive ponderosa pine sites in central 

Oregon. Limited low thinning occurred about 40 years ago when the road network was established. 

Lookout Mountain is the site of limited past research, but several silvicultural studies continue as longterm work with regional and national significance, such as the Lookout Mountain installation of the Levelsof-Growing Stock study (Figure 1, Table 1). 

The Deschutes National Forest Plant uses a system of vegetation plant association to group similar parts 

of environmental gradients. Plant associations (Volland 1988) represent units of land that respond 

similarly to management activities and support similar plant communities throughout different stages of 

development. Plant associations within the Lookout Mountain Unit strongly reflect both elevation and 

aspect influences. The Pinus ponderosa/Purshia tridentate-Ceanothus velutinus plant association (CPS312) represents the warmest and driest plant association in the Lookout Mountain Unit; it occurs on 

toeslopes and undulating slopes with east aspects at elevations up to about 1,370 m (4,500 feet). From 

about 1,370 m upslope to about 1,500 m (4,900 feet) on east to southeast aspects is the Mixed 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 8 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 8
conifer/Ceanothus velutinus-Arctostaphylos patula plant association (CWS-112). Ponderosa pine is the 

sole dominant tree species on more southerly aspects, while grand or white fir increases in prevalence on 

east to northeast aspects. On more southern and eastern aspects up to about 1,615 m in elevation (5,300 

feet) is the Mixed conifer/Ceanothus velutinus-Carex stoliferus plant association (CWS-115). This plant 

association supports predominantly ponderosa pine as a major seral tree species, and small amounts of 

white/grand fir, sugar pine, and Shasta red fir (Abies x shastensis) as advance regeneration. The tall 

$T

$T $T

$T

$T

$T$T

$T $T $T

$T$T$T

$T

$T

$T $T $T

$T $T

47

3

42

41

2

4

25

36

33

35

34

46

39

49

24

37

38

107

107

107

67

68

69

70

737172

74

7576

77

79

81

82

83 84

85

86

Pipo/Putr-Ceve/Cain

Pipo/Putr-Ceve

Abgr/Ceve-Arpa

Abgr/Ceve/Cain

Abgr/Arpa

Lookout Mountain Unit

Pringle Falls Experimental Forest

4040

4240

4245

4240  ̄

0 500 1,000 250 Meters

Figure 1. Past research units and major roads 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 9 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 9
Table 1. Past research activities shown on Lookout Mountain map from GIS database 

Unit Activity Scientist Publication 

2 Underburning for shrub control in 1976, 

1979, 1980 

R. Martin Martin, 1982. Shrub control by burning 

before timber harvest 

3 Pruning in 1941 in a 55-year-old stand E. Mowat 

W. Dahms 

J. Barrett 

J. Cahill 

Barrett, 1968. Pruning of ponderosa 

pine... effect on growth. Res. Pap. 

PNW-68. 

Cahill, 1991. Pruning young-growth 

ponderosa pine: product recovery and 

economic evaluation. Forest Products 

Journal 41: 67-73. 

Fight, Bolon, Cahill, 1992. Res. Pap. 

PNW-449. 

4 Ponderosa pine-grand fir spacing study K. Seidel 

24 Release and thinning in a 43-year-old 

suppressed grand fir and Shasta red 

(noble) fir stand. 

K. Seidel Seidel, 1977. Suppressed grand fir and 

Shasta red fire respond well to release. 

Res. Note PNW-288. 

25 Thinning from above in 1938 in a 94-yearold stand E. Mowat 

J. Barrett 

Barrett and Newman, 1974. High yields 

from 100-year-old ponderosa pine. 

Res. Note PNW-220. 

33-35 Ponderosa pine-grand fir plantation in a 

spacing study 

K. Seidel Seidel, 1985. A ponderosa pine-grand 

fir spacing study in central Oregon: 

results after 10 years. Res. Note PNW429. 

36-42 P and L sale: commercial thinning in 1949 E. Mowat 

J. Sowder 

Sowder, 1953. Lumber grade recovery 

from young ponderosa pine. Res. Note 

RN-88. 

46 Underburned R. Martin Evans, L. 1983. Hydrophobicity of 

cindery typic cryorthents. OSU M.S. 

thesis. 

47 Level-of-Growing-Stock established in 1965 

in 65-year-old ponderosa pine with 6 

growing-stock levels 

J. Barrett 

P. Cochran 

W. Oliver 

Barrett, 1983. Growth of ponderosa 

pine poles thinned to different stocking 

levels in central Oregon. Res. Pap. 

PNW-311. 

Cochran and Barrett, 1999. Growth of 

ponderosa pine thinned to different 

stocking levels in central Oregon: 30-

year results. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-508. 

Oliver, 2005. The west-wide ponderosa 

pine levels-of-growing-stock study at 

age 40. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR198. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 10 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 10
shrub Chrysolepis chrysophylla (giant chinquapin) occurs throughout both these plant associations. At 

higher elevations is the Mixed conifer/Arctostaphylos patula plant association (CRS-111) that supports 

white-grand fir, Shasta red fir, western white pine, and Douglas-fir. This plant association is not part of 

this study. 

The direct scope of inference is the Lookout Mountain Unit of Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. 

Extension of any inference will be made through the use of similarity in environments such as plant 

association. On this basis, work at Lookout Mountain will have wide applicability in stands of similar 

structure throughout the Deschutes and Fremont-Winema National Forests. Similar stand conditions may 

also occur west of Yakima, Washington. 

IV. Management issues

Pringle Falls Experimental Forest, and specifically the Lookout Mountain Unit, provides a unique platform 

on which to research forest dynamics after thinning and fuel reduction. In addition to research into the 

forest dynamics after thinning and fuel reduction, there are management issues within the Lookout 

Mountain Unit that could be addressed in concert with the planned research. These management issues 

include the following: 

• Restore tree vigor and reduce the risk of landscape-scale stand-replacement disturbance 

• Protect and enhance future research opportunities 

• Protect the Lookout Mountain installation of the West-Wide Levels-of-Growing-Stock Study and the 

Ponderosa Pine-Grand Fir Spacing Study from wildfire. 

The general provisions of the Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 USC 551), the McSweeney-McNary 

Act of 1928, and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Research Act of 1978 (16 USC 1643) 

authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to designate experimental forests and ranges. Responsibility for 

establishment and administration is delegated to the Chief under regulations (7 CFR 2.60(a)). The 

McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928 was further implemented by Regulation L-20 in 1930, directing the Chief 

of the Forest Service to define experimental forests as dedicated to and used for research, and to make 

them permanently available. Station Directors are the line officers responsible to the Chief for assigned 

research activities, including research and management of experimental forests (FSM 1236.21). Within 

PNW Station, individual experimental forests and ranges are recognized as components of a national 

network, with administration assigned to Research Programs. The MDR Program has responsibility for 

Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. This responsibility includes protecting and ensuring a wide array of 

future research opportunities. Pringle Falls Experimental Forest was established as a center for research 

in ponderosa pine forests east of the Oregon Cascade Range. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 11 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 11
Most of Lookout Mountain consists of stands of a single age cohort (163 years). A small portion along the 

southern edge is younger. Stands with similar ages, density, and productivity are uncommon across the 

east slope of the Cascades because of past disturbances, including wildfires, insects, and cutting 

practices. The most similar stands may be young “black-bark” pine stands on some 40,500 ha (100,000 

acres) within the US 97 corridor. James Barrett (PNW Research Forester, retired) first documented the 

increase in diameter and the decrease in radial growth of ponderosa pine at Lookout Mountain in 2005. 

He found 0.1 acre (0.04 ha) plots with basal area in excess of 275 ft2

acre-1 (63.1 m2ha-1) and SDI over 

400, and suggested that attacks from mountain pine beetle and possibly western pine beetle were 

imminent. A larger inventory was conducted in 2007, with 0.1 acre (0.04 ha) reconnaissance plots located 

systematic across a uniform grid of the ponderosa pine portion of Lookout Mountain; the highest elevation 

portion of Lookout Mountain that supports mountain hemlock and grand fir was not sampled. A complete 

census of all trees ≥ 10 cm in diameter at breast height was recorded to develop a diameter distribution, 

the plant association was identified, and large-diameter down woody fuel mass was estimated. The plant 

association recorded in the field provided a verification of mapped plant associations in the Deschutes 

Forest-wide GIS database. Ponderosa pine at Lookout Mountain average 17.5 inches (43 cm) in diameter 

and about 162 feet2

 acre-1 (37 m2ha-1) in basal area, or about 121% of the total basal area reported for 

live and dead stems in old-growth ponderosa pine stands on Pringle Butte (Youngblood et al. 2004). In 

addition, stands at Lookout Mountain range from about 132 to 224% of the Upper Management Zone in 

stand density index. With the exception of a few small study plots, the entirety of Lookout Mountain has 

continuous canopy cover, high levels of accumulated ground fuels, and high tree density of almost 

uniform diameter. 

Historical disturbance regimes (especially insects and fire) are well documented for central Oregon. 

Recent landscape-scale mortality of ponderosa pine in the Southwestern United States has been linked 

to “climate change type drought” (e.g., dry and warm) that occurred in this region in the early 2000s, with 

several bark beetle species, including the western pine beetle, responded to the vast landscapes of 

drought-stressed trees and causing widespread tree mortality (Forest Service Climate Change Resource 

Center, http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc). Similar declines in tree vigor and similar bark beetle-caused tree 

mortality could occur at Lookout Mountain if tree density remains high. The mountain pine beetle often 

kills extensively when contiguous stands or landscapes become vulnerable. The combination of large 

area with consistent structure (host availability), high tree density with declining vigor, and average tree 

diameter greater than 12 inches (30 cm) is a condition conducive to a landscape-scale outbreak of 

mountain pine or western pine beetle. Both lightning and human-caused ignitions are responsible for 

wildfires on the Deschutes National Forest. Notable recent fires include Eyerly (23,573 acres) and Cache 

Mountain (3,894) in 2002 and Davis (21,181 acres), Link (3,574 acres), 18 (3,800 acres), and the B&B 

complex (90,769 acres) in 2003. In one single storm event in August 2003, 53 fires were started by 

lightning, resulting in suppression activity. Likelihood of a fire starting from lightning is discussed by Agee 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 12 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 12
(1993); lightning data for central Oregon is available from Vaisala's U.S. National Lightning Detection 

Network, a lightning information system monitoring cloud-to-ground lightning activity across the 

continental United States, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The combination of large area, abundant 

ground and ladder fuels, frequent lightning strikes (because of aspect and location), consistent stand 

structure, and absence of natural fuelbreaks is a condition conducive to a landscape-scale wildfire. 

Lookout Mountain ponderosa pine stands are relatively young, have grown exceptionally well but have 

declined in radial growth over the past decade, and currently have structural characteristics which place 

them at imminent risk of catastrophic loss to bark beetles and high risk of loss to wildfire. Thinning and 

fuel reduction treatments on about 3,000 acres (1413 ha) of Lookout Mountain are needed to restore tree 

vigor, reduce susceptibility to insect infestation, and reduce the risk of stand-replacement wildfire. While 

wildfire and insect outbreaks are not a 100% certainty, there is a recognized risk from both fire and 

insects and this risk increases with time. 

Within this portion of the west-wide distribution of ponderosa pine, individual trees can easily survive for 

600 years (Youngblood et al. 2004). Protection and enhancement of future research opportunities at 

Lookout Mountain that focus on ponderosa pine can best be realized by ensuring that existing canopy 

cover of the 163-year-old cohort of ponderosa pine is maintained and allowed to develop old-growth 

structural characteristics. The time required for a single-cohort stand to develop old-growth characteristics 

is unknown. What is known for certain is that loss of the existing cohort by insects or fire will reset the 

clock and the process of stand development will begin again. Fire exclusion over the past 100 years at 

Lookout Mountain has maintained high stand density, led to high basal area, and allowed high fuel 

accumulation. In the absence of fire exclusion, frequent, low or mixed severity fire over time would 

gradually reduce the density of live trees, create snags and large down logs, and maintained low fine fuel 

accumulations. At the same time, insects have caused fine-scale mortality, especially in lodgepole pine 

(Pinus contorta). Because of past fire exclusion, landscape-scale stand-replacement disturbance by fire 

or insects will eliminate many future research opportunities by erasing mature stands and preventing all 

research except studies that focuses on the initial stages of stand establishment. Thinning and fuel 

reduction treatments on about 3,000 acres (1413 ha) of Lookout Mountain are needed to protect and 

enhance future research opportunities. 

Two long-term studies currently in place at Lookout Mountain require special consideration in any plan for 

vegetation manipulation. As previously mentioned, the Lookout Mountain Levels-of-Growing-Stock Study

is one installation in a west-wide study of reserve thinning densities. Similar installations occur in the 

Black Hills of South Dakota, the Coconino Plateau in Arizona, the southern Blue Mountains in Oregon, 

and on the west side of the Sierra Nevada in California. These installations, and the combined study, 

have demonstrated long-term stand development in single-cohort ponderosa pine and provide numerous 

implications for current resource management objectives. The Lookout Mountain installation was 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 13 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 13
established in 1966, and received subsequent thinning in 1985 and 1995 (Cochran and Barrett 1999). It 

now needs a third thinning, however, rethinning of the lower reserve densities is no longer possible 

without modifying the number of target trees because any further density reduction would leave less than 

the minimum needed to characterize growth response (Oliver 2005). Close collaboration with the Ecology 

and Management of Western Forests Influenced by Mediterranean Climate Research Unit in Redding, 

CA, will be essential to successfully design and implement a third thinning. In addition, thinning and 

reducing ground fuels around the 0.5 acre (0.2 ha) plots is needed to create a fuelbreak or buffer that 

prevents ground fire from eliminating this important set of plots and terminating the study. Similarly, the 

Ponderosa Pine-Grand Fir Spacing Study is a long-term study of the competitive interaction of these two 

species at different densities. The study was established in 1975 on about 20 acres (8.1 ha) in the mixed 

conifer portion of Lookout Mountain, and the first 10 year results were reported by Seidel (1985). 

Responsibility for this study currently is held by the Forest Science Department of Oregon State 

University. This study has potential to product new insights in stand development of mixed stands that are 

especially relevant in current and future management regimes. The study site is surrounded by mixed 

conifer forests with high fuel accumulations. Any ignition in the surrounding forest could easily spread 

across the study site, eliminating the study plots and terminating the study. Thinning and reducing ground 

fuels around the study site is needed to create a fuelbreak or buffer that prevents ground fire from 

eliminating this set of plots and terminating the study. 

V. Research goals and questions

The broad goal of this project is to refine management options for restoring resiliency in forest 

ecosystems. Restoration of degraded forest and rangeland ecosystems continues to be the number one 

national research and development priority3

. Under this broad goal, planned research will: 

• determine the nature of short and longer-term responses of forest vegetation and processes to 

thinning and fuel reduction in ponderosa pine stands, and 

• evaluate the effects of thinning and fuel reduction treatments on long-term susceptibility to fire, 

insects, wind, climate change, and other forest disturbances. 

Specific research questions or objectives include the following: 

1. What set of fuel reduction treatments best accelerates the development of large trees while over the 

long-term reintroduce natural disturbance processes that provide greater ecosystem resiliency? 

2. What is the long-term influence of climate change interacting with a set of fuel reduction treatments 

on vegetation dynamics and forest structure? 

3. Can single cohort stands be readily converted to multi-cohort stands? 

4. Do multi-cohort stands share the same risks of multiple, interacting stresses as single-cohort stands? 

 

3 (USDA-FS, Research and Development Strategic Plan for 2008-2012)

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 14 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 14
5. How does the dominant shrub, giant chinquapin (Chrysolepis chrysophylla), respond in the near-term 

to a set of fuel reduction treatments? 

6. How does the residual stand structure resulting from a set of fuel reduction treatments interact locally 

and in the near-term with wind to cause additional structural changes? 

VI. Treatments, experimental design, and hypotheses 

Five levels of treatment will be implemented: 

1. Thin from below4

 to the Upper Management Zone (UMZ) specified for the dominant plant association, 

based on stand density index values for ponderosa pine. Follow with ground fuel reduction using a 

combination of mowing and underburning. 

2. Thin from below to 75% of the UMZ specified for the dominant plant association, based on stand 

density index values for ponderosa pine. Follow with ground fuel reduction using a combination of 

mowing and underburning. 

3. Thin from below to 50% of the UMZ specified for the dominant plant association, based on stand 

density index values for ponderosa pine. Follow with ground fuel reduction using a combination of 

mowing and underburning. 

4. Regeneration cut5

 (conducted in the form of a free thin) across the entire diameter distribution to 75% 

of the UMZ specified for the dominant plant association based on stand density index values for 

ponderosa pine, to begin transition to an all-aged stand structure. Because this treatment involves 

limited removal of dominant and codominant trees, small canopy gaps (0.1 ha average) will be 

created. These will build on existing canopy gaps where they exist and initiate some where they do 

not exist. Ground fuel reduction using a combination of mowing and underburning may be 

incorporated in the near-term and will be evaluated as an additional activity in the mid-term. 

5. Control or untreated- retain for the near-term the current structure without manipulation. No follow-up 

ground fuel reduction with either mowing or underburning will occur. 

Four treatment blocks with relatively homogeneous elevation, aspect, and plant association were 

delineated using, where possible, existing roads. Five treatment units were delineated in each block, 

based, where possible, on topography and roads (Figure 2). Units assigned treatments 4 and 5 were 

specifically designed to be smaller in size because a large, untreated block only preserves the inherent 

risk of beetle-caused or fire-cause mortality that the treatments are planned to reduce. During the 

randomization process within a block, the first assignment of treatment 4 or 5 resulted in slitting a unit. 

Treatments 4 and 5 intentionally were assigned to units half the size of treatments 1, 2, and 3. This full 

 

4

 Cultural treatment made to reduce stand density by removing trees from the lower crown classes or 

smaller diameters to improve growth and overall forest health of trees in the upper crown classes or the 

larger trees; a low thin. 

5 Regeneration cut, removing individual trees and small groups of trees in all size classes more or less 

uniformly throughout the stand to promote growth of remaining trees and to provide space for 

regeneration, as part of a selection method for uneven-aged or all-aged management. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 15 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 15
randomization is based on the assumption that variation among units was the same regardless of unit 

size. 

The experimental design consists of treatment structure and design structure. The treatments structure 

consists of the set of five treatments to forest stands at Lookout Mountain. The design structure consists 

of four block designed to better ensure homogeneity in elevation and aspect. The resulting experimental 

design is a randomized complete block design. Specific treatment guides are listed in Table 2. 

Control and multi-aged units were specifically designed to be half the size of other treatment units. Large 

control units present an inherent risk from multiple disturbance threats and indirect risks to adjacent 

treated units because of contagion influences. Control units only have short-term value because the more 

important contrasts will be among actively treated structures. The assignment of “control” status to certain 

units is an arbitrary nomenclature used here for ease of study design interpretation. Use of this term is 

made while fully acknowledging a history of past treatments, including thinning and fire exclusion. It 

implies a no-action treatment. Status of the control units will be assessed after collection of 5th-year posttreatment data; nothing in this study plan precludes assignment of other treatments after this period. The 

four control units could be retained to facilitate additional comparison, converted to multi-cohort 

trajectories to facilitate comparisons with treatment 4, or retained as a single-cohort stand and thinned to 

an as yet unspecified density. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 16 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 16
Pipo/Putr-Ceve/Cain

Pipo/Putr-Ceve

Abgr/Ceve-Arpa

Abgr/Ceve/Cain

Abgr/Arpa

Unit 22

Unit 23

Unit 21

Unit 25

Unit 24

Unit 11

Unit 12

Unit 14

Unit 13

Unit 15 Unit 32

Unit 35 Unit 34 Unit 31

Unit 33

Unit 44

Unit 41

Unit 42

Unit 43

Unit 45

 ̄

0 500 1,000 250 Meters

Figure 2. Treatment unit delineation overlaying plant association type boundaries, Lookout Mountain, 

Pringle Falls Experimental Forest 

Low thinning prescribed for treatments 1, 2, and 3 will be marked to retain the existing spatial distribution 

of dominant and codominant trees; any clumped or random distribution of large trees will be preserved. 

Cutting preference by species is listed in Table 3. 

Mowing will consist of a mechanical treatment to reduce the height of shrubs and ladder fuels. It is 

commonly used on the Deschutes National Forest as a precursor to underburning because it directly 

affects fuelbed structure. Underburning will require individual burn plans to be developed for each unit to 

account for differences in site physical features and fuel accumulations, and may include both backing 

and strip head fires under conditions conducive to low flame heights. Mortality targets for overstory trees 

will be consistent across burn plans. Burns will be designed for late season in the year after the 

completion of thinning to allow curing of all activity fuels. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 17 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 17
Table 2. Treatment by unit, with target stand density index and basal area values based on dominant 

plant associations at Lookout Mountain, Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. 

Unit Plant 

Association

Treatmen

t 

Acres Stand 

Density Index

Basal area 

(feet2

 acre-1) 

Density (Trees 

acre-1) 

Mean diameter 

(inches) 

Current conditions 

Block 1 CWS 115 651 214 140 101 15.9

Block 2 CWS 115 841 257 180 92 18.9

Block 3 CWS 113 899 267 185 101 18.3

Block 4 CPS 312 554 223 150 93 17.2

Target conditions 

Block 1 

11 2 118 117 76

12 3 192 78 51

13 4 83 117 76

14 1 194 156 101

15 5 64 212 138

Block 2 206

21 4 106 117 83

22 2 206 117 83

23 3 225 78 56

24 1 196 156 111

25 5 108 245 174

Block 3 

31 3 148 101 70

32 1 164 202 140

33 2 384 152 105

34 4 94 152 105

35 5 109 266 184

Block 4 

41 3 116 51 35

42 1 160 102 70

43 4 70 77 53

44 2 147 77 53

45 5 61 229 154

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 18 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 18
Table 3. Marking guide for Lookout Mountain, Pringle Falls Experimental Forest, with species 

preferences for cutting. 

Cutting preference Species 

1 Lodgepole pine 

2 Grand/white fire 

3 Small diameter Ponderosa pine 

4 Small diameter Mountain hemlock 

5 Small diameter Douglas-fir 

This study uses the term “long-term” to mean beyond the immediate effect of the treatments as proposed, 

extending forward in time several hundred years. This study uses the term “near-term” to mean the 

immediate effect of the treatments as measured during the 5th year post-treatment. To fully realize the 

research values of the proposed treatments, future treatments will be necessary to maintain the desired 

structure. These future treatments, while intentionally not incorporated as part of this study plan, will be 

essential to realign the desired structure along target SDI values as established in this plan for treatments 

1, 2, and 3 (100, 75, and 50% UMZ) and will likely need to occur after about 40 years. In addition, 

additional treatments will need to occur to continue the trajectory of stand development as initiated by 

treatment 4 (multicohort). These repeated treatments could occur at about 50 year intervals. Surface and 

ladder fuels may also need repeated mowing or underburning at about 20 year intervals. Nothing in this 

study plan precludes future, higher priority research from occurring within the Lookout Mountain Unit of 

Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. Nothing in this study plan obligates the PNW Station to any future 

fiscal commitment. 

The proposed treatments were simulated with respect to near-term changes in stand structure using the 

Forest Vegetation Simulator and Stand Visualization System and reconnaissance data collected from 

Lookout Mountain stands. These simulations indicated that the proposed treatments would result in 

clearly distinguishable residual structures. For example, treatment 1 in Block 1 would result in a residual 

stand with about 33 live trees per acre with diameters ranging from 15.7 to 39.9 and averaging 23.5 

inches, and 12 dead trees per acre with diameters ranging from 7.2 to 19.0 and averaging 12.7 inches 

(Figure 3 and 4). In contrast, treatment 2 in Block 4 would leave about 10 live trees per acre with 

diameters ranging from 26.1 to 33.1 and averaging 28.8 inches, and 4 dead trees per acre with diameters 

ranging from 6.5 to 19.3 and averaging 12.3 inches (Figure 5 and 6). 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 19 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 19
Figure 3. Simulated forest structure before treatment in Block 1, Lookout Mountain, Pringle Falls 

Experimental Forest 

Figure 4. Simulated forest structure the first year after thinning to the Upper Management Zone (treatment 

1) in Block 1, Lookout Mountain, Pringle Falls Experimental Forest 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 20 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 20
Figure 5. Simulated forest structure before treatment in Block 4, Lookout Mountain, Pringle Falls 

Experimental Forest 

Figure 6. Simulated forest structure the first year after thinning to 75% of the Upper Management Zone 

(treatment 2) in Block 1, Lookout Mountain, Pringle Falls Experimental Forest 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 21 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 21
The first research question deals specifically with structural changes, especially the restoration of radial 

growth rates leading to larger tree diameters, while reintroducing surrogates for low and mixed severity 

disturbance events. In the context of this study, the combination of thinning, mowing, and underburning 

are considered surrogates for low and mixed severity disturbance events. The combination of thinning 

and underburning may be more effective in reducing fuels and changing diameter distributions, but may 

produce more varied results that depend, in part, on the amount of fuels added during the thinning activity 

(Youngblood et al. 2008). We know that young ponderosa pine stands respond positively to density 

reduction (Cochran and Barrett 1999). Because mean annual basal area growth is directly related to SDI 

and thus density, the working hypothesis is that treatments that remove greater levels of tree density 

eventually result in greater quadratic mean diameter, or more simply, removing more small trees should 

allow the residual trees to grow to larger diameters. This means that radial growth and ultimately diameter 

after thinning from below to 50% of the UMZ would result in larger trees than after thinning from below to 

75% of the UMZ, with thinning to the UMZ resulting in less change (Annual radial growth in Treatment 3 > 

Treatment 2 > Treatment 1). While this hypothesis is known to hold true for young, pole-size stands of 

ponderosa pine, it is not known if it holds equally true for stands of larger trees when thinning treatments 

are combined with mowing and underburning. If so, it provides managers additional justification to 

consider restoration treatments options across a wider array of stand types. 

The second research question introduces climate change as an additional form of disturbance that has 

not been adequately addressed in thinning and fuel reduction research. This portion of central Oregon 

has gone through at least five distinct periods of warming climate over the past 110 years (NASA Global 

Climate Change Website http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov). In the Western United States and at the continental 

scale (1 km), long-term satellite data show consistently earlier onsets of spring greening and 

corresponding increases in length of growing season (Forest Service Climate Change Resource Center: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc). Small changes in growing season duration may result in expansion of species 

that have relatively narrow habitat requirements. Lookout Mountain provides a unique opportunity to 

explore vegetation dynamics under a changing climate regime because it is topographically simplistic and 

contains essentially uniform or homogenous soils (deep pumice derived from the explosion of Mt. 

Mazama). It also contains several relatively clear and distinct ecotones (boundaries between easily 

recognized plant associations). Treatment blocks differentiate two elevation zones (above 4,200 feet 

(91280 m) or below) and two aspect zones (southeast and south). Under this task, the working 

hypothesis is that initial or early indications of vegetation dynamics are most likely to become apparent in 

the shrub and herbaceous strata, and these dynamics will be manifest as expansion of species from drier 

sites to those that are currently more moist as conditions become increasingly stressed. This means that 

shrubs and herbaceous species that dominate in plant associations on flat topography outside the 

treatment area or only on the edges of Block 4, such as antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), will 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 22 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 22
expand upward in elevation. Under this hypothesis, the niche space of individual species and entire 

assemblages of species will shift from Block 4 and Block 2 to Block 1 and eventually to Block 3. Within 

each block, shifts can be expected where disturbance provides access and growing space, and will most 

likely be manifest under Treatment 2 and 3 and perhaps 4. This work will provide a validity assessment 

for current efforts to downscale vegetation dynamic projections to 80 m resolution (personal 

communication, R. Neilson). This will provide insights into the effects of climate change at the community 

scale, and provide managers much needed information on the restructuring of plant composition as a 

result of regional climate interacting with legacies of past management. These insights will inform 

management options to better incorporate these changes. 

The third question is one that has plagued silviculturists for decades. Pre-Euro-American dry ponderosa 

pine forests were predominantly multi-cohort. Within the pumice-dominated zone of eastside forests, 

remaining old-growth ponderosa pine forests retain this multi-cohort structure, with sometimes ten distinct 

cohorts in the overstory (Youngblood et al. 2004). Past management, however, has converted most of the 

old-growth, multi- cohort stands to young, single-cohort stands, and much of the ponderosa pine resource 

is now managed under an even-aged system. Essentially all of our knowledge base for managing 

ponderosa pine ecosystems is derived from studies conducted in even-aged stands. The uneven-aged 

management regime that maintains multi-cohort stands is often recognized as advantageous for 

management of ponderosa pine because of productivity, aesthetics, and its ease in restoring presettlement stand structures (O’Hara 2005). Few if any empirical comparisons of even-aged and unevenaged systems exist across any suite of treatments. A fundamental question is how to convert singlecohort stands that are a legacy of past management to multi-cohort stands that may more closely 

resemble those that developed under pre-Euro-American conditions. This question is well-timed under 

the hypothesis that the structural characteristics in multi-cohort stands may provide greater resiliency to 

low and mixed severity disturbances compared to the structural characteristics in single-cohort stands. It 

is unlikely that any answer to this question will come from any short-term study; multi-cohort stands of 

ponderosa pine developed over centuries. Initiation of the conversion from single-cohort to multi-cohort in 

this study in four treatment units as a result of Treatment 4 will begin the long-term process. In this case, 

the objective will be the establishment of a new (the second) cohort. Given that the vast majority of 

ponderosa pine-dominated landscapes for currently managed under an even-aged regime and there are 

recognized benefits to using the uneven-aged system, this work will provide managers much needed 

information into the process of restructuring single-cohort stand to multi-cohort stands. Under the 

framework of this study plan, only a single trajectory for multi-cohort structure will be established in the 

near-term. There is, however, the opportunity to convert units assigned the “control” or no-treatment 

alternative (Treatment 5) to a contrasting trajectory for multi-cohort structure once their immediate value 

as controls has been fully realized. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 23 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 23
The fourth question deals specifically with the risks from multiple, interacting stresses. Pre-Euro-American 

dry ponderosa pine forests were predominantly multi-cohort, and this structure developed in response to 

multiple, interacting stresses. We know much about the legacy of fire in these stands because burning 

often leaves a signature in fire scars, tree rings, and recruitment of a new age-class. Likewise, insects 

leave signatures in tree rings, or kill trees and create snags. Differences in regional climate are reflected 

in the dendrochronology record. We know little about how fire, insects, and climate change will continue 

to serve as drivers of structural change in multi-cohort stands when compared to single-cohort stands 

within the same ecosystem. Recent work using structural equation modeling after thinning and 

underburning (Youngblood, Grace, and McIver, in press, Ecological Applications) has shown the effect of 

fire and insects leading to tree mortality. This same approach will be used in this work at Lookout 

Mountain. The working hypothesis is that climate change and insects, and perhaps fire, will interact to 

increase tree mortality in relation to relative tree density, density management will delay large tree 

mortality, and selection cutting will provide the greatest degree of resiliency to the interaction of climate 

change, insects, and fire (Residual tree mortality in Treatment 1 > Treatment 2 > Treatment 3 > 

Treatment 4). Like the second question, this work will provide insights into the effects of climate change at 

the community scale and provide managers much needed information on the restructuring of forest 

stands as a result of interacting disturbance regimes, and management options to better incorporate 

these interactions. 

The fifth question deals specifically with how the dominant shrub, giant chinquapin (Chrysolepis 

chrysophylla), responds to thinning and fuel reduction treatments. Giant chinquapin is a native, broadleaved, sclerophyllous evergreen. In the central Oregon portion of its distribution, it is an understory 

arborescent shrub, or rarely a small tree; heights generally do not exceed 16 feet (5 m). It regenerates 

both sexually and vegetatively. Seedling reproduction is generally restricted to mesic sites, while 

vegetative regeneration is more prevalent on increasingly xeric sites. It is a long-lived, moderately shadetolerant species. Thin bark provides little insulation from radiant heat, so fires usually kill the cambium 

around the base of the stem. After these fires which kill aerial stems, giant chinquapin resprouts from 

adventitious buds located on stumps or dormant buds located on an underground regenerative organ 

known as a burl. Burls are aggregations of buds, and newly resprouted giant chinquapin individuals occur 

as "sprout clumps" and are characterized by a large number of sprouts (McMurray 1989). Sprouts are 

tolerant of direct sunlight and develop well in exposed postburn environments. Preburn canopy coverage 

and density are usually regained within 2 to 5 years on mixed-conifer sites in the southern Oregon 

Cascades (Volland 1985). Sprouting vigor can, however, be greatly reduced when plants are subjected to 

repeated underburns that consume much of the duff (Martin 1982). Little is known of how this species 

contributes to fuel loading and fire behavior in underburns after various levels of thinning, how it may 

respond to mowing, and how it may respond to climate change. The working hypothesis is that 

disturbances that are surrogates for low severity wildfires, such as thinning, mowing, and underburning, 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 24 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 24
will stimulate resprouting. More canopy exposure will encourage sprout growth. This means that 

aboveground shrub density and biomass should be greatest with the greatest amount of thinning and fuel 

reduction, and remain at current levels where canopies are undisturbed (Treatment 3 > Treatment 2 > 

Treatment 4 > Treatment 1). At the same time, shifts in composition because of climate change will drive 

giant chinquapin upslope and to more mesic environments. This means that the distribution of giant 

chinquapin at Lookout Mountain will shift upward and eastward (Block 3 > Block 1 > Block 4 > Block 2). 

Like the second question, this work will provide insights into the effects of climate change, but focuses on 

a specific shrub species of interest. The work also will provide managers much needed information on the 

fire effects and fire ecology of a dominant species that is not well understood. 

The sixth question is designed to evaluate the long-term susceptibility of stands managed under thinning 

and fuel reduction regimes to windthrow. Models of disturbances for eastside forest have not incorporated 

wind as a common event, yet it has long been known that wind affects forest structure. Windspeed may 

increase in mountainous areas, and prevailing winds are usually greater when winds confront large 

objects such as isolated mountains. Wind can break stems or uproot trees (windthrow). Management 

practices such as thinning and underburning may contribute to wind damage because individual trees are 

made more susceptible as stands are opened, the roughness factor is increased, and trees that were in 

the interior of closed stands become more exposed. In addition, rooting systems may be affected by 

mechanical equipment or fire. Lookout Mountain provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the effects of 

wind after thinning and fuel reduction because the site is an exposed volcanic cone with little surface 

topography other than elevation and aspect. The study site has south- and southeast-facing aspects. 

Prevailing wind in the region is southwesterly, especially during winter storms. In addition, Lookout 

Mountain is prone to strong localized downdrafts associated with summer thunderstorms that again track 

from the southwest to the northeast. The working hypothesis is that windthrow and stem breakage in 

residual trees from wind initially will increase with increasing levels of opening (Treatment 3 > Treatment 

2 > Treatment 1> Treatment 4). In addition, windthrow and stem breakage may vary with elevation and 

aspect; Block 1> Block 2 = Block 4 > Block 4. This work will provide manager new information on the 

interaction of disturbance processes that affect forest structure, and provide information on management 

options that best incorporate wind as a disturbance process. 

VII. Field methods 

Data collection for select measurement variables will occur pre-treatment, and the first, third, and fifth 

year post-treatment. Within each operational treatment unit, a 9 ha (22.2 acre) experimental unit will be 

established. Sample plots (25 points centered on 50 m by 50 m grid points will be established and used to 

collect measurement data. Grid points will be established along compass lines with tape and staff 

compass and incorporate at least 50 m from any stand boundary, road, or concentration of skid trails. 

Grid points will be geo-referenced by GPS, and monumented after the full suite of treatments is 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 25 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 25
completed. Circular 400-m2

 reconnaissance plots will be centered on each grid point. On each plot, the 

following environmental parameters will be collected to characterize the plot: elevation to the nearest 

meter by using a hand-held GPS, aspect to the nearest 1° by using a compass, slope to the nearest 1°by 

using a clinometer, and a measure of total live overstory canopy cover taken as five observations with a 

GRS densitometer at five regularly spaced points. All tree stems will be inventoried by species and noted 

as live or dead, diameters measured to the nearest 0.1 cm with a diameter tape at 1.37 m in height, total 

tree height measured to the nearest 0.1 m with a clinometer or telescoping height pole, live crown ratio 

estimated ocularly to the nearest 10%, and the height to the lower live crown estimated to the nearest 

meter. Within the whole plot, canopy cover by species of all vascular plants will be ocularly estimated to 

the nearest 1% below 10% and to the nearest 10% above 10% after the peak of the growing season. 

Ground and surface fuels will be sampled pre- and post-treatment in all units using the grid points as 

starting points for planar intercept transects. 

VIII. Analysis methods 

In general, the response variable of interest is the index represented by the difference between pretreatment and post-treatment value for a given variable summarized by treatment unit. The resulting 

experimental design is a randomized complete block design with the following general analysis of 

variance table: 

Analysis of variance table for a given 

response variable

Source of variation df 

Block 1 

Response 4 

Error 12 

Vegetation field measurements will be summarized for stem density, basal area, and diameter class 

distribution per ha by species, live and dead for each treatment unit (20 total) across plots. Stand density 

index (Cochran 1994) will be computed for each treatment unit based on the dominant species by 

averaging across plots. Constancy and canopy cover of vascular plant species, canopy cover of advance 

regeneration, and treatment unit overstory canopy cover will be computed by averaging across plots. 

Diversity of non-conifer vascular species for each treatment unit will be computed for each treatment unit. 

Multivariate tests for differences in community composition among and between treatments will be 

calculated with pre- and post-treatment data by using multi-response permutation procedures (MRPP in 

PC_ORD), a non-parametric randomization-based alternative to multivariate ANOVA (McCune and Grace 

2002). Indicator species analysis and non-metric multidimensional scaling ordination (NMS) (McCune and 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 26 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 26
Grace 2002) will be used to compare community composition within and among treatments. This 

ordination method is well suited to non-normal ecological data because it avoids the assumptions of linear 

relationships among variables and is robust with respect to large numbers of zero values. In a similar 

effort, NMS was used to show little change in community composition over time after thinning and 

underburning in northeastern Oregon (Younblood et al. 2006). Measured fuelbed characteristics from 

each treatment unit will be used to synthesize properties and predicted fire potentials by using the Fuel 

Characterization Classification System. This tool will be used to construct fuelbeds with quantitative fuel 

characteristics (physical, chemical, and structural properties) and probable fire parameters for each unit 

from inventoried data collected both pre-and post-treatment as a part of monitoring structural changes 

resulting from thinning and fuel reduction. 

IX. Application of research results

This work will result in a body of scientific knowledge and understanding through the refereed and peerreviewed literature, and other products that are recognized for their scientific leadership and utility. The 

ultimate application of information generated by this work will be incorporation in planning, evaluation, 

monitoring, and management tools used by federal agencies and private land owners 

X. Safety and health

PNW and R6 personnel will be conducting much of the fieldwork under normal field conditions of spring, 

summer and fall. All Federal personnel will be informed of and operate under approved safety procedures 

as detailed in FSH 6709.11– Health and Safety Code Handbook. Supervisors will ensure appropriate Job 

Hazard Analyses are completed before work begins. Safety and health issues for those operating under 

contract, cooperative agreement, or joint venture agreement are not addressed here. 

XI. Quality assurance/Quality control procedures 

This planned research will be conducted as a team effort between the Deschutes National Forest and 

PNW Station scientists. It will require a high degree of cooperation and coordination with the Bend/Ft. 

Rock Ranger District. Personnel performing data collection functions are responsible for operational 

maintenance and calibration of any measuring or recording instrument. Accuracy of each instrument will 

be maintained using manufacture's recommended procedures for daily calibration and annual 

maintenance. Approximately 10 percent of morphological measures (tree diameters, tree height, canopy 

cover of herbaceous species, etc.) will be remeasured (blind resampling) to determine precision levels. 

For computer entry and data reduction, the identified personnel are responsible for verification of data 

entry, documentation of data completeness, accuracy, precision, and implementation of corrective action. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 27 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 27
Data will be stored in log books, computers, and backup disks. Numeric data will be entered and stored in 

spreadsheet form compatible with MS Excel. File headers will identify fields, units, experimental 

conditions, and other relevant information. All files will be readily convertible to a MS ACCESS database. 

Hardtop backups and the complete study file, including documentation of methods and equipment used, 

training and certification of personnel, any notes from field personnel, study plan amendments, copies of 

manuscripts and technology transfer materials, and safety documentation will be housed in fireproof 

storage at LaGrande. 

XII. Environmental analysis considerations (see FSM 1950 and FSM 2150) 

All NEPA issues will be addressed by an environmental assessment conducted by the Bend/Ft. Rock 

Ranger District. 

XIII. Personnel assignment, time of completion, and cost 

About 0.3 SY is currently devoted to this project. Timing and cost are left unresolved pending final NEPA 

and awarding of contract(s) for treatment implementation. Priority is for collection of pre-treatment 

measurement. Research questions 5 (Response of giant chinquapin) and 6 (Post-treatment blowdown) 

can be addresses initially in about 5 years. Research questions 1 (Development of large trees and 

resiliency), 2 (Climate change), and 3 (Transition from single-cohort to multi-cohort) will require several 

decades. Research question 4 (Multiple, interacting stresses in mult-cohort stands) may require the 

longest time to fully address. This study plan designs the platform to ultimately bring insight to these 

questions. Monitoring of vegetation dynamics and shifts in stand structure, using the plot structure 

developed under this study plan, will need to occur at about 5-year intervals after the first 5 years to 

address research questions 1, 2, 3 and 4. Current staffing and funding limitations preclude obligation of 

resources beyond the near-term. 

XIV. Study files 

A study file serves as a permanent record of this study. Because of the long-term nature of this study, the 

study file is considered a living, work in progress, with periodic updates and additions. It includes 

information that would be needed to reconstruct or continue the study, and to ensure the usefulness and 

validity of the data from the study. This study file is maintained as a hard copy with electronic components 

as backup. The study file will reside at the LaGrande Forestry Sciences Lab. in a fire-proof cabinet. It will 

include the following information: 

1. The draft study plan and comments from all peer and technical reviewers; the reconciliation document 

detailing responses to reviewer’s comments, and the final approved study plan. 

2. A listing of measurements and their expected quality. 

3. Documentation of the methods used in the study. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 28 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 28
4. Documentation of equipment used in the study. 

5. Documentation of training and certification of personnel. 

6. Quality assurance documents, such as audit results or quality control data. 

7. Notes to the file by scientists, field personnel, technicians, and others involved in data collection or 

data management. 

8. Data archiving procedures including references to the location of the raw data. 

9. Meta-data, describing the location, types, and physical relationship of all data. 

10. Any pertinent correspondence, including notes to the file, study plan amendments, other important 

information needed to understand or recreate the study. 

11. Study products, such as copies of manuscripts and technology transfer materials. 

12. Manuscript review comments and authors' responses. 

13. Safety documentation. 

14. NEPA documentation. 

XV. Ancillary or related research opportunities 

Late in 2006, a field review and workshop was held to identify potential partners and collaborators (see 

appendix material). As a result of this workshop and subsequent discussions, a list was generated of 

potential research questions or opportunities that could be tied to or overlaid on this study at Lookout 

Mountain. This list is by no means a complete list, but it does represent the varied and integrated nature 

of multi-disciplinary work that could stem from the research platform represented by this study design. 

Potential research topic Partner 

Define linkages between mid-scale analyses and project-level 

analyses 

PNW (FSD) 

Expand and develop the current use of the west-wide pine beetle 

model to incorporate western, mountain, pine engraver, and red 

turpentine beetle 

PNW (MDR and WWETC) 

Refine and demonstrate a burn probability and fire risk analysis using 

a fire modeling/actuarial risk approach 

PNW (MDR and WWETC) 

Evaluate the use of biological control agents to manipulate 

aboveground biomass of the dominant shrub, snowbrush (Ceanothus 

velutinus) and thereby encourage enhanced herbivory and defoliation 

to create more predictable burning conditions and potentially greater 

natural regeneration of ponderosa pine 

PNW (MDR) 

Refine models of product recovery for different tree sizes PNW (HNRI) 

Test the effects of removing woody biomass on fire severity and on the PNW (HNRI) 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 29 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 29
supply and quality of woody biomass over time and space 

Role of plant stress in shifting insect dynamics PNW (MDR) 

Application of free thinning to modify forest structure RMRS 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 30 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 30
XVI. Literature 

Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. 

Agee, J. K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-320. 

Agee, J. K., and C. N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology 

and Management 211:83-96. 

Allen, C. D., M. Savage, D. A. Falk, K. F. Suckling, T. W. Swetnam, T. Schulke, P. B. Stacey, P. Morgan, 

M. Hoffman, and J. T. Klingel. 2002. Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine 

ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecological Applications 12: 1418-1433. 

Arabas, K. B., K. S. Hadley, and E. R. Larson. 2006. Fire history of a naturally fragmented landscape in 

central Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36:1108-1120. 

Arno, S. F., H. Y. Smith, and K. A. Krebs. 1997. Old growth ponderosa pine and western larch stand 

structures: influences of pre-1900 fires and fire exclusion. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INTRP-495. 

Bergoffen, W. W. 1976. 100 years of Federal forestry. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Information 

Bulletin 402. 

Boisvenue, C., and S. W. Running. 2006. Impacts of climate change on natural forest productivityevidence since the middle of the 20th century. Global Change Biology 12: 862-882. 

Brown, R. T., J. K. Agee, and J. F. Franklin. 2004. Forest restoration and fire: principles in the context of 

place. Conservation Biology 18:903-912. 

Cochran, P. H., and J. W. Barrett. 1995. Growth and mortality of ponderosa pine poles thinned to various 

densities in the Blue Mountains of Oregon. USDA Forest Service Research paper PNW-RP-483. 

Cochran, P. H., and J. W. Barrett. 1999. Growth of ponderosa pine thinned to different stocking levels in 

central Oregon: 30-year results. USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW-RP-508. 

Cochran, P. H., J. M. Geist, D. L. Clemens, R. R. Clausnitzer, and D. C. Powell. 1994. Suggested 

stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. USDA Forest 

Service Research Note PNW-RN-513. 

Converse, S J., G. C. White, K. L. Farris, and S. Zack. 2006. Small mammals, and forest fuel reduction: 

national-scale responses to fire and fire surrogates. Ecological Applications 16: 1717-1729. 

Covington, W. W., and M. M. Moore. 1994. Postsettlement changes in natural fire regimes and forest 

structure: ecological restoration of old-growth ponderosa pine forests. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 

2:153-181. 

de Groot, P., and J. J. Turgeon. 1998. Insect-pine interactions. Pages 354-380 in D. M. Richardson, 

editor. Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 

Dodson, E. K., K. L. Metlen, and C. E. Fiedler. 2007. Common and uncommon understory species 

differentially respond to restoration treatments in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests, Montana. 

Restoration Ecology 15: 696-708. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 31 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 31
Dolph, K. L., S. R. Mori, and W. W. Oliver. 1995. Long-term response of old-growth stands to varying 

levels of partial cutting in the eastside pine type. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 10:101–108. 

Erickson, H. E., and R. White. 2007. Invasive plant species and the Joint Fire Science Program. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-707. 

Everett, R. L., R. Schellhass, D. Keenum, D. Spurbeck, and P. Ohlson. 2000. Fire history in the 

ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests on the east slope of the Washington Cascades. Forest Ecology 

and Management 129: 207-225. 

Farris, K. L., S. J. Converse, S. Zack, A. J. Amacher, T. Contreras, W. Gaines, E. Kilpatrick, J. D. 

Lanham, D. Miles, D. Roberson, G. Rompre, K. E. Sieving, and J. Woolf. In press. Short-term effects 

of fire and fire surrogate treatments on avian nest survival: a national-scale, interdisciplinary analysis. 

Ecological Applications. 

Fettig, C. J., K. D. Klepzig, R. F. Billings, A. S. Munson, T. E. Nebeker, J. F. Negrón, and J. T. Nowak. 

2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle 

outbreaks in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest Ecology and 

Management 238: 24-53. 

Fiedler, C. E., S. F. Arno, C. E. Carlson, M. G. Harrington. 1992. Management prescriptions for storing 

biodiversity in inland northwest ponderosa pine-fir forests. Northwest Environmental Journal 8: 211-

213. 

Gaines, W. L., M. Haggard, J. F. Lehmkuhl, A. L. Lyons, and R. J. Harrod. 2007. Short-term response of 

land birds to ponderosa pine restoration. Restoration Ecology 15: 670-678. 

Graham, R. T., S. McCaffrey, and T. B. Jain. 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify 

wildfire behavior and severity. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-120. 

Harrod, R. J., B. H. McRae, and W. E. Hartl. 1999. Historical stand reconstruction in ponderosa pine 

forests to guide silvicultural prescriptions. Forest Ecology and Management 114: 433-446. 

Hayes, J. L., and G. E. Daterman. 2001. Bark beetles (Scolytidae) in eastern Oregon and Washington. 

Northwest Science 75: 21-30. 

Hessburg, P. F., R. G. Mitchell, and G. M. Filip. 1994. Historical and current roles of insects and 

pathogens in eastern Oregon and Washington forested landscapes. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-327. 

Hessburg, P. F., J. K. Agee, and J. F. Franklin. 2005. Dry forests and wildland fires of the inland 

Northwest USA: contrasting the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and modern eras. Forest 

Ecology and Management 211:117-139. 

Long, J.N., and T. W. Daniel. 1990. Assessment of growing stock in uneven-aged stands. West. J. Appl. 

For. 5: 93-96. 

Martin, R. E. 1982. Shrub control by burning before timber harvest. Pages 35-40 in Site preparation and 

fuels management on steep terrain: Symposium proceedings. Pullman, WA: Washington State 

University. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 32 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 32
McCullough, D. G., R. A. Werner, and D. Neumann. 1998. Fire and insects in northern and boreal forest 

ecosystems. Annual Review of Entomology 43: 107-127. 

McCune, B, and J.B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden 

Beach, OR, USA. 

McKenney, D. W., J. H. Pedlar, K. Lawrence, K. Campbell, and M. F. Hutchinson. 2007. Potential impacts 

of climate change on the distribution of North American trees. BioScience 57: 939-948. 

McMurray, N. E. 1989. Chrysolepis chrysophylla. In: Fire Effects Information System. USDA, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ 

Mitchell, R. G., 1990. Effects of prescribed fire on insect pests. Pages 111-116 in J. D. Walstad, S. R. 

Radosevich, and D. V. Sandberg, editors. Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. 

Mutch, R. W., S. F. Arno, J. K. Brown, C. E. Carlson, R. D. Ottmar, and J. L. Peterson. 1993. Forest 

health in the Blue Mountains: a management strategy for fire-adapted ecosystems. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-310. 

O’Hare, K. L. 2005. Multiaged silviculture of ponderosa pine. Pages 58-70 in Ritchie, M. W., D. A. 

Maguire, and A. Youngblood, eds. Proceedings of the symposium on ponderosa pine: issues, trends, 

and management. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-198. 

Oliver, W. W. 1995. Is self-thinning in ponderosa pine ruled by Dendroctonus bark beetles? Pages 213-

218 in Proceedings of the 1995 national silviculture workshop. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report GTR-RM-267. 

Oliver, W. W. 2005. The West-wide ponderosa pine levels-of-growing-stock study at age 40. Pages 71-79 

in Ritchie, M. W., D. A. Maguire, and A. Youngblood, eds. Proceedings of the symposium on 

ponderosa pine: issues, trends, and management. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

PSW-GTR-198. 

Ottmar, R. D., and D. V. Sandberg. 2001. Wildland fire in eastern Oregon and Washington. Northwest 

Science 75: 46-54. 

Parker, T. J., K. M. Clancy, and R. L. Mathiasen. Interactions among fire, insects and pathogens in 

coniferous forests of the interior western United States and Canada. Agricultural and Forest 

Entomology 8: 167-189. 

Reineke, L. H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. J. Agric. Res. 46: 627-638. 

Richardson, D. M., P. W. Rundel, S. T. Jackson, R. O. Teskey, J. Aronson, A. Bytnerowicz, M. J. 

Wingfield, S. Proches. 2007. Human impacts in pine forests: past, present, and future. Annual Review 

Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38: 275-297. 

Rorig, M. L., and S. A. Ferguson. 1999. Characteristics of lightning and wildland fire ignition in the Pacific 

Northwest. Journal of Applied Meteorology 38: 1565-1575. 

Sartwell, C., and R. E. Dolph, Jr. 1976. Silvicultural and direct control of mountain pine beetle in second 

growth ponderosa pine. USDA Forest Service Research Note RN-PNW-268. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 33 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 33
Shaw J. D. 2000. Application of stand density index to irregularly structured stands. Western J. Applied 

For. 15(1): 40-42. 

Seidel, K.W. 1985. A ponderosa pine-grand fir spacing study in central Oregon: results after 10 years. 

USDA Forest Service Research Note PNW-429. 

Short, K. C., and J. F. Negrón. 2003. Arthropod responses: a functional approach. Pages 286-305 in P. 

Friederici, editor. Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Island Press, 

Washington, DC. 

Starr, L., J. L. Hayes, T. M. Quigley, G. E. Daterman, and S. Brown. 2001. A framework for addressing 

forest health and productivity in eastern Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science 75: 1-10. 

Steele, R., S. F. Arno, and K. Geier-Hayes. 1986. Wildfire patterns change in central Idaho’s ponderosa 

pine-Douglas fir forest. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 1: 16-18. 

Stephens, S. L. 1998. Effects of fuels and silvicultural treatments on potential fire behavior in mixed 

conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada, CA. Forest Ecology and Management 105: 21-34. 

Stephens, S. L., and S. J. Gill. 2005. Forest structure and mortality in an old-growth Jeffrey pine-mixed 

conifer forest in north-western Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 205: 15-28. 

Stephens, S. L., J. J. Moghaddas, C. Edminster, C. E. Fiedler, S. Hasse, M. Harrington, J. E. Keeley, E. 

Knapp, J. McIver, K. Metlen, C. Skinner, and A. Youngblood. In press. Fire and fire surrogate 

treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels, and potential fire behavior and severity from six 

western United States coniferous forests. Ecological Applications. 

Taylor, A. H., and C. N. Skinner. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late-successional 

reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 111: 285-301. 

Van Mantgum, P.J., and N.L. Stephenson. 2007. Apparent climatically induced increase of tree mortality 

rates in a temperate forest. Ecology Letter 10: 909-916. 

Volland, Leonard A. 1985. Plant associations of the central Oregon Pumice Zone. R6-ECOL-104-1985. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 

Wickman, B. E. 1992. Forest health in the Blue Mountains: the influence of insects and disease. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-295. 

Wright, C. S., and J. K. Agee. 2004. Fire and vegetation history in the eastern Cascade Mountains, 

Washington. Ecological Applications 14: 443-459. 

Youngblood, A., T. Max, and K. Coe. 2004. Stand structure in eastside old-growth ponderosa pine forests 

of Oregon and northern California. Forest Ecology and Management 199: 191-217. 

Youngblood, A., K. L. Metlen, and K. Coe. 2006. Changes in stand structure and composition after 

restoration treatments in low elevation dry forests of northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and 

Management 234: 143-163. 

Youngblood, A., C.L. Wright, R. D. Ottmar, and J. D. McIver. 2008. Changes in fuelbed characteristics 

and resulting fire potentials after fuel reduction treatments in dry forests of the Blue Mountain, 

northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 3151-3169. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 34 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 34
Youngblood, A., J. B. Grace, and J. D. McIver. Delayed conifer mortality after fuel reduction treatments: 

interactive effects of fuel, fire intensity, and bark beetles. Ecological Applications, in press. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 35 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 35
Appendix A. Chronology of events leading to implementation of Lookout Mountain fuel reduction 

Date Event 

2002-2003 A. Youngblood (Research Forester, PNW) discussed management needs and research 

opportunities with J. Schlaich (Presale Forester, Bend/Ft. Rock RD) during 

implementation of the Dilman Project located on Pringle Butte, Pringle Falls 

Experimental Forest 

July 27, 2005 A. Youngblood facilitated a fieldtrip and site review with PNW scientists discussing 

options for managing low elevation forest to provide wildlife habitat and reduce the risk 

of stand-replacement fire. During this site review, E. Forsman (Research Wildlife 

Biologist, PNW) suggested that Lookout Mountain was generally above the elevation 

zone that had the potential for developing suitable habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl. 

Sept. 27, 2005 A. Youngblood provided an overview of Pringle Falls Experimental Forest for E. DePuit 

(MDR Program Manager, PNW) and discussed the need for active management to 

address fuel accumulation and the threat for bark beetles and wildfire. 

Oct. 7, 2005 A. Youngblood received a letter from J. Barrett (Research Forester, PNW, retired) 

detailing current low growth rates and the need to thin co-dominant, intermediate, and 

suppressed trees to avoid attacks from mountain and western pine beetles. 

May 23, 2006 A. Youngblood facilitated a site review at Lookout Mountain with P. Cruz (District 

Ranger, Bend/Ft. Rock RD, Deschutes NF), Bill Peterson (Silviculturist, Bend/Ft. Rock 

RD), and J. Schlaich. A request for assistance in planning and conducting a fuel 

reduction project was sent to the Forest Supervisor. 

June 22, 2006 A. Youngblood facilitated a site review at Lookout Mountain with E. DePuit, G. Beatty 

(Center Director, WWETAC) and T. Shaw (Science Team Leader, WWERAC) and 

discussed opportunities for collaborative research. 

Aug. 8, 2006 A. Youngblood met with L. Weldon (Forest Supervisor, Deschutes NF), E. DePuit, and 

P. Cruz to discuss opportunities for a large-scale fuel reduction/forest health 

enhancement project at Lookout Mountain and agreed on the schedule for activities 

leading to NEPA analysis. 

Oct. 11, 2006 A. Youngblood facilitated a site review of Lookout Mountain for 21 invited partners and 

collaborators, including PNW scientists from the MDR, ECOP, HNRI, and FSD programs 

and the WWETAC, Forest Service scientists from PSW and RMRS, and scientists from 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy, and Wildlife 

Conservation Society. 

Oct. 12, 2006 A. Youngblood facilitated a strategic planning discussion with fieldtrip participants to 

identify research priorities and opportunities for collaboration. 

Oct. 18, 2006 A. Youngblood facilitated a site review of Lookout Mountain for an ad-hoc group of PNW 

scientists exploring opportunities for addressing landscape ecology research. 

June 20, 2007 A. Youngblood facilitated a fieldtrip and site review of Lookout Mountain for the Forest 

Service Research Executive Team (FSRET) with Deputy Chief, WO staff directors, PNW 

Executive Team, and P. Cruz. 

July 16-20, 2007 A. Youngblood worked with J. Schlaich, D. Schneider (Fuels Planner, Bend/Ft. Rock 

RD), P. Brna (Silviculturist, Bend/Ft. Rock RD) gathering initial stand inventory for 

treatment delineation. 

Dec. 3-5, 2007 A. Youngblood worked with J. Schlaich, D. Schneider, and P. Brna to define treatment 

blocks, units within blocks, and treatment randomization. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 36 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 36
Dec. 12, 2007 A. Youngblood provides Bend/Ft. Rock RD the project description with study goals, 

treatment objectives, and unit marking guides. 

Feb. 5, 2008 A. Youngblood outlines project goals and research opportunities during MDR Program 

Review. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 37 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 37
Appendix B. Support letters from M. Ritchie, PSW Research Station; D. Maguire, Oregon State 

University; and J. Hayes, PNW Research Station. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan: page 38 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 38
United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest 

Service 

Pacific 

Southwest 

Research 

Station 

3644 Avtech Parkway 

Redding, CA 96002 

(530) 226-2551 

mritchie@fs.fed.us 

 Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 

Date: April 1, 2008 

To: Andrew Youngblood 

Research Forester 

PNW Research Station 

1401 Gekeler Lane 

LaGrande OR 97850 

Subject: Lookout Mountain Experimental Forest treatments 

As recent events at Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest have shown, efforts to protect our 

research investments are important for the long-term maintenance of experimental forests. 

Wildfire and insects present a very real threat to the existing studies and the potential for future 

research. The Redding Silviculture Laboratory has been maintaining three ponderosa pine 

Levels-of-Growing-Stock installations, including one at Lookout Mountain. The LOGS study 

has been providing valuable information on management of ponderosa pine for 40 years. We 

intend to continue to support and maintain these research installations. The Lookout Mountain 

LOGS installation continues to be viable and should help researchers and managers better 

understand the long-term consequences of density management. The proposed treatments for 

Lookout Mountain Experimental Forest should provide a significant measure of protection for 

the LOGS site and other existing long-term projects. I look forward to continuing our research 

partnership at Lookout Mountain and hope that the treatments can be implemented in a timely 

manner. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Martin Ritchie 

Martin Ritchie, Ph.D. 

Research Statistician and Team Leader 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 39
•
 

Oregon State UNIVERSITY 

College of Forestry 

321 Richardson Hall 

Corvallis, Oregon 

97331-5752 

Telephone 

541·737·2244 

Fax 

541·737·1393 

April 2, 2008 

Dr. Andy Youngblood 

Forestry and Range Sciences Lab 

1401 Gekeler Lane 

La Grande, OR 97850-3368 

Dear Andy: 

Thanks for the update on the planned Lookout Mountain treatments. 

I applaud your efforts to move ahead with active management of this unit as part of the Pringle 

Falls Experimental Forest. It is impossible to overstate the case for protecting the ongoing field 

trials at Lookout Mountain, particularly the three that my group at OSU continues to maintain: 

the ponderosa pine stand density study, the mixed species trials in ponderosa pine and grand fir, 

and the true fir stand density study. The mixed species spacing trials are the oldest in the region, 

having been started by researchers at the Bend Lab in the early 1970s. Due to their age and the 

interactions appearing between species mix and stand density, the results are attracting 

increasing attention from a wide range of forest managers, even those from the Westside due to 

lack of comparable long-term studies. The ponderosa pine and true fir stand density studies are 

similarly irreplaceable. 

Please let me know ifI can do anything to expedite implementation ofthis plan. 

A. Maguire 

Hayes Professor of Silviculture 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 40
Jane Hayes 

<jhayes@eoni.com>

04/02/2008 01:43 PM

To Andy Youngblood <ayoungblood@fs.fed.us>

cc

bcc

Subject Re: Lookout Mountain

Dear Andy:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft study plan for Lookout Mountain. As we have discussed 

on several occasions while standing in the amazing 160 year-old stands within this unit of Pringle Falls 

Experimental Forest, there is the potential to link some critically important research efforts with the 

vegetation manipulations proposed for these stands. In particular, given availability of necessary funding, 

I would be very interested in conducting research aimed at evaluating the changes in insect threats 

(specifically from western and mountain pine beetles) in relationship to the proposed vegetation 

treatments over time. This is an area of considerable interest as land managers move forward in meeting 

the objectives of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which calls for thinning and fuels reduction 

managements throughout western forests. While the reduction of fire risk has been demonstrated, the 

impacts of these vegetation treatments on reducing risk from and interactions with other disturbance 

agents, such as weather events (e.g., windthrow) and insects, is less clear. A recent synthesis of the 

literature on vegetation management and bark beetles draws attention to gaps in our knowledge in this 

area (Fettig et al. 2007). And as you point out in you write up of Research Question 4, “We know little 

about how fire, insects, and climate change will continue to serve as drivers of structural change in 

multi-cohort stands when compared to single-cohort stands within the same ecosystem.” I envision a 

collaborative study to assess your working hypothesis concerning the level of mortality in treatment units 

specifically addressing the issue of insect-caused mortality but also in relationship with other sources of 

mortality. There also exists an excellent opportunity, in conjunction with this work, to address a significant 

need identified by the Bark Beetle Technical Working Group. Pheromone-baited traps have been used 

extensively to monitor beetle population fluctuations; however, there is limited ability to translate trap 

capture data into actual tree mortality. A study addressing this knowledge gap may be competitive in the 

Special Technology Development Program, which provides funds for projects the development of 

management tools.

I look forward to working with you and others as the Lookout Mountain project moves ahead. Please keep 

me posted concerning your progress.

 

Jane L. Hayes

_____________________________________

Research Biological Scientist

USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station

LaGrande Forestry Science Laboratory

1401 Gekeler Lane

LaGrande OR 97850

Phone: 541-962-6549

e-mail: jlhayes@fs.fed.us

 

 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 41
Lookout Mountain Study Plan: Consequences of thinning and fuel reduction at Lookout Mountain 

Response to external reviewer comments (changes to Study Plan indicated by underline) 

Andrew Youngblood 

December 10, 2008

Reviewer 1: 

Comment 1: An indication of the dominant plant association for each block would be useful. 

Response: Description of dominant plant associations added to Section III. Site area description and 

added to Table 2.

Comment 2: Recommend reduction of focal research questions from 6 described to at most 2 or 3, 

consider delineation of experimental units with respect to prioritization of these 2 or 3 research questions. 

Response: The research questions are interrelated and not easily reduced without forgoing both present 

and future opportunities. The study plan outlines the need for treatments, present research opportunities, 

and methods. Extraneous issues will contribute to objective prioritization. 

Comment 3: Develop a more explicit statement of treatment rationale, target conditions, and 

hypothesized temporal development. 

Response: Treatment rationale revised. Target conditions and hypothesized temporal development in the 

form of projections from FVS simulations added to the end of Section VI. Treatments, experimental 

design, and hypotheses. 

Comment 4: Given that forest stands undergo varying degrees of risk or susceptibility throughout stand 

development, at what period of stand development is resilience to be assessed? Are the alternative 

treatments designed to express resilience at different stages of development? 

Response: Post-treatment response to treatment will be used to assess resiliency of the new structure. 

Structural conditions should stabilize after treatment within about five years. Continued stand 

development will lead to changes in relative resiliency. While these treatments may be followed as a 

permanent study, future issues and management questions may arise, forcing a redirection of stand 

trajectory. The current study plan does not obligate the agency to evaluate resiliency at multiple stages of 

stand development. Duration of the study is addressed by additional text in Section XIII. Personnel 

assignment, time of completion, and cost.

Comment 5: More clearly define the outcomes of interest-resilience. Are characteristics of resiliency the 

same for all potential disturbance agents? 

Response: While an overall goal of resiliency exists, clearly defined research objectives carry specific 

responses or outcomes. Objective 1 is assessed by diameter growth, objective 2 is assessed by changes 

in plant species, objective 3 is assessed by seedling density, objective 4 is assessed by tree mortality, 

objective 5 is assessed by shrub density, and the final objective is assessed by changes in stand 

structure. 

Reviewer 2: 

Comment 1: I would be more interested in contrasting two intensities of even-aged thinning treatments 

with two intensities of multi-aged conversion treatments, relative to a control. 

Response: While not planned at this time, there is an opportunity in the future to create two intensities of 

multi-cohort conversion treatments by partitioning each unit in half. The decision to double the complexity 

of the multi-cohort transition treatment can be postponed indefinitely and implemented after an initial 

cohort is established. In addition, the units assigned as controls for the short-term could be treated in the 

near future to establish multi-cohort stands at a different intensity. This decision to treat the controls will 

be postponed indefinitely. Text added to Section VI. Treatments, experimental design, and hypotheses to 

indicate the future opportunity of an additional or contrasting intensity of regeneration cut to convert 

control units to multi-cohort units.

Lookout Mountain Study Plan Reconciliation: page 1 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 42
Reviewer 3 

Comment 1: Comment summarizing high probability of losing existing stands to fire and insects, and 

recognition of the intent of proposed work is to provide protection to current and future research 

opportunities. 

Response: In addition to providing protection to current studies and future research opportunities, the 

proposed research will address questions relating to current and future management issues, such as the 

role of fuel treatments in the development of large ponderosa pine, the influence of climate change, and 

the identification of steps to transition from single-cohort to multi-cohort stands. 

Comment 2: There is an expected increase in young tree growth and vigor resulting from density 

reduction, yet these affects are poorly documented for stands of the same age as those at Lookout 

Mountain; positive results would increase confidence of similar increase in growth and vigor for similar 

environments. 

Response: I agree. There are several hundred thousand acres of young ponderosa pine in central 

Oregon that originated after clearcutting in the first half of the 20th century. Knowledge of management 

options for these stands will become increasingly relevant and essential. 

Comment 3: There is an apparent lack of focus on levels of thinning and fire resiliency; questions 

interaction of heavy thinning, winds, and microsite effects on drying of fuels. 

Response: This study includes consideration of the effect of wind on differing stand densities. Study plan 

text revised in Section VI. Treatments, experimental design, and hypotheses and Section VIII. Analysis 

methods to incorporate techniques for quantifying changes in fuels. Fuels will be assessed by using the 

Fuel Characterization Classification System (FCCS); this tool will be used to construct fuelbeds with 

quantitative fuel characteristics (physical, chemical, and structural properties) and probable fire 

parameters for each unit from inventoried data collected both pre-and post-treatment as a part of 

monitoring structural changes resulting from thinning and fuel reduction. There are no plans to assess 

seasonal variation or characterize short-term changes in live and fine woody fuel moisture resulting from 

density manipulation. Treatment of ground fuels using a combination of mowing and underburning will 

likely occur when live fuels have fully cured for at least one year after density reduction. 

Comment 4: Comment on research objective for identifying a potential climate change influence; position 

of treatments may confound the influence of overstory density treatment; a redesign would require equal 

opportunity for movement of plant communities or species to each density level. 

Response: Efforts to identify specific changes as a result of climate change will require long-term 

monitoring of permanent plots. To the extent that homogeneous plant associations and specific indicator 

or unique species can be identified and ecotones mapped, then all species have an equal opportunity to 

move either to warmer and drier or cooler and moister sites as climate changes. 

Comment 5: It isn’t clear why the multi-cohort and control treatment are not the same size as other 

treatments. 

Response: Multi-cohort and control treatments are intentionally applied to smaller units compared to 

other treatments because the management issue pertaining to a need to enhance future research 

opportunities can best be met by maintaining large homogeneous blocks for future use. Increasing the 

size of multi-cohort and control units would decrease the size of these homogeneous blocks and would 

not provide any additional benefit to the study design. 

Comment 6: There is only one treatment (free thinning) proposed for the multi-cohort treatment and 

therefore not an experimental approach to this question. 

Response: Multi-cohort stands, in the context of ponderosa pine in central Oregon, imply cohorts 

established at about 50-year intervals over several hundred years. The proposed treatment need only 

establish a new cohort in the near-term. There is an opportunity to embed different levels of density 

reduction to establish different stand trajectories in the future. This is more clearly described in new text in 

Section VI. Treatment, experimental design, and hypotheses. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan Reconciliation: page 2 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 43
Comment 7: Free thinning seems like an inefficient way to create a multi-cohort stand. Wouldn’t one want 

to simulate the historic low intensity fire regime and create small gaps of varying size coupled with low 

thinning? 

Response: Free thinning will be used to work with the existing spatial distribution of trees, and at the 

same time create small openings that facilitate natural regeneration. This is more clearly described in new 

text in Section VI. Treatment, experimental design, and hypotheses. In contrast, a thin from below does 

not reduce the number of dominant and codominant trees that form the upper canopy, and so this kind of 

treatment does not create new canopy gaps and is unlikely to result in establishment of a new cohort. 

Comment 8: The SDI of treatment 4 is the same as that of treatment 2. Will free thinning create different 

structure (a wider range of diameters)? 

Response: The objective of the multi-cohort treatment is a wider range of diameters over time. The first 

entry is designed to establish a new cohort. The immediate effect will be a wider diameter distribution. 

Over time, diameter distribution of the multi-cohort treatment should dramatically depart from that of 

single-cohort stands. Stands that differ in structure can have the same SDI. 

Comment 9: Disappointed not to see any habitat research. 

Response: As stated in the Study Plan, one management issue addressed by this proposed work is 

enhancing future research opportunities. Protecting and enhancing forest structure is one means of 

enhancing future research opportunities. Future research could address questions of habitat utilization. 

Role of plant stress in shifting insect dynamics is listed as a potential avenue of ancillary work. A portion 

of the proposed study area is currently mapped as Northern Spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging 

habitat. While not specifically addressed as a research objective, there is an opportunity to examine the 

treatment response with respect to short-term changes in specific NSO habitat attributes. In addition, 

work tying treatments to ungulate browse production is possible. Surface water is absent from Lookout 

Mountain. 

Reviewer 4 

Comment 1: The study plan says that structural characteristics are relatively uncommon in these 163 

year old relatively even-aged pine stands. Does it make sense to spend scarce research dollars studying 

uncommon forest type? 

Response: Within section IV. Management issues, the study plan indicates that stands with similar ages, 

density, and productivity are uncommon because of past natural and human-caused disturbances. 

Stands within the Lookout Mountain Unit have had limited manipulation. A large area in central Oregon 

could soon develop similar structural characteristics. The proposed work is designed to provide 

information on broadly applicable management systems. 

Comment 2: The study plan needs to better articulate the conceptual model being used. How do fuel 

structure and microclimate interact to determine forest resiliency. How does thinning affect both? Will fuel 

structure alone be used as a surrogate for resiliency? The study plan did not make clear that fuels would 

be measured. Also, fuel structure alone may not be a useful surrogate for fire hazard because canopy 

removal changes the forest microclimate and may make the stands hotter, dryer, and windier, thus 

increasing fire hazard. Also, if this project involves new roads and skid trails, there may be significant 

increase in the risk of fire ignition from human activity. 

Response: Opportunities to address microclimate effects of structure manipulation exist within the broad 

context of planned treatments and research, but are not specifically addressed by this study plan. 

Linkages between fine fuels and microclimate could be addressed through ancillary studies that take 

advantage of the study platform. Live and dead fuels are an integral part of the proposed study, and a full 

fuel assessment will be conducted through the description of Fuel Characterization Classification System 

(FCCS). Methodology for constructing fuelbeds is now described in new text in Section VIII. Analysis 

methods. Fuel structure is not considered a surrogate for resiliency. The propose study will focus on 

direct measures of tree growth and tree mortality as indicators of overall resiliency. Proposed treatments 

will not make the stands windier, but may cause short-term effects in the form of wind throw or blow-down 

and is considered fully within the proposed work as an independent line of research. No new roads and 

skid trails are proposed. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan Reconciliation: page 3 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 44
Comment 3: The objectives of this project need to be clarified. All the letters of support seem to focus on 

the protection of existing research plots instead of the value of the new research. Could the old research 

plots be protected with less severe treatments? Is the scale of proposed treatments intended to advance 

the new research of protect the old? The study design seems to treat a large fraction of the Lookout 

Mountain area, but there is evidence that fire hazard can be reduced by strategically locating treatments 

on a fraction of the landscape. Could the new research be done at a smaller scale in another location? 

These treatments will also likely be profitable. What role does economics play in the designed and 

decision? 

Response: Two letters of support from collaborators stress the importance protecting existing research 

within Lookout Mountain. The proposed study plan addresses the need to protect these areas by treating 

the surrounding area. In addition to protecting these areas, the proposed treatments will facilitate new 

research yielding new insights on vegetation dynamics, and provide a platform for future research. Fire 

hazard is only one of the threats addressed by the study plan. Western pine and mountain pine beetle 

also represent a primary ‘threat’ addressed by the study plan; new text is added to Section II. Background

to explain why insects are a primary threat and why landscape-scale treatments are needed to counter 

the insect threat. Some research could be conducted outside the experimental forest, but this would not 

address the management issues of restoring tree vigor and reducing the risk of landscape-scale standreplacement disturbance, protecting and enhancing future research opportunities, or protecting the 

existing research installations. Economics was not a consideration in developing the study plan. Currently 

there is no means by which timber sale receipts are made available to Forest Service Research and 

Development. 

Comment 4: We have a pretty good idea how to grow big trees faster. We know less about how to find 

the right balance between retention and removal. This study focuses on the development of large trees 

which is one aspect of forest restoration that is relatively well understood. Research would provide higher 

value information for management if it would focus on aspects of restoration that are less known, such as 

mortality processes and wood dynamics in dry forest systems and the complex effects of thinning on both 

fuel AND microclimate. Maybe this study should collect information on the snag diameter, height, and 

decay class as well as snag numbers and snag longevity. We need more research to help find the right 

balance between mortality retained and recruited vs. mortality captured and sent to the mill. Mortality is 

an important and under-appreciated ecological process. Virtually everything we do in the forest has an 

adverse impact on dead wood structures: regen harvest, thinning, salvage, sanitation, roads and hazard 

tree removal, fire suppression, etc. Korol (2002) estimates that even if we apply enlightened forest 

management on federal lands for the next 100 years, we will still reach only 75% of the historic 

abundance of large snag across the interior Columbia Basin, and most of the increase in large snags will 

occur in roadless and wilderness areas. Current forest plan standards recommend using best available 

science to maintain 100% potential population levels of certain snag associated species, but the use of 

"biological potential" methods is now being scientifically questioned. We know we need to provide more 

snag habitat and we know that logging such as this study proposes will capture mortality and reduce snag 

habitat. We could really use more research addressing questions of mortality processes, dead wood 

dynamics, and ecological services provided by dead wood. 

Response: This study plan addresses the issue of retention and removal. Mortality is specifically 

addressed in objective 4. Lookout Mountain stands currently are about 160 years in age, and contain low 

numbers of standing dead trees and large down woody fuels. There is no plan to “capture” mortality. We 

can anticipate that treatments will cause some mortality, leading in the future to some down wood fuel. 

Quantification of these effects is planned. Planned treatments may result in accelerated tree growth, 

resulting in larger trees, and ultimately larger snags and larger pieces of down woody fuels. Fuel 

conditions will be quantified as a component of unit-specific burning plans. Microclimate effects on 

changing fuel condition are not addressed. Standards and guidelines for protection of snags and live 

trees needed for future snags within the experimental forest include maintenance at 60% of the maximum 

potential population of cavity-nesting species, except where the objectives of research would be 

jeopardized. Retention of standing dead is shown in simulated/hypothesized temporal development in the 

form of projections added to the end of Section VI. Treatments, experimental design, and hypotheses. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan Reconciliation: page 4 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 45
Comment 5: Another area in need of more research is the complex effects of thinning on fire hazard. Fire 

hazard is almost always measured through a surrogate - fuel structure, but fire is in fact controlled by 

several factors, including fuels, weather, and topography. Logging has an influence on two of the factors 

that control fire behavior - both fuels and microclimate. The study should consider the influence of 

removing canopy trees on making the stands hotter, dryer, and windier, as well as the creation of slash 

and the establishment and growth of future ladder fuels. It would be easier to support research that helps 

us find the right balance between canopy fuels reduced to reduce the risk of spreading crown fire vs. 

canopy retained to maintain a cool-moist microclimate and suppress the growth of ladder fuels. 

Response: The concept of purposely manipulating fuels to create varying fuelbed and igniting these 

under different burning conditions has merit and could contribute to our understanding of complex 

wildland fuel-burning issues. This work, however, is beyond the scope of the proposed research. 

Changes in fuelbeds will be characterized by using the Fuel Characteristic Classification System (FCCS). 

This tool allows the calculation of various fire potential related to the intrinsic physical capacity of residual 

fuelbeds to release energy and to spread, crown, consume, and smolder under a benchmark set of wind 

speed and fuel moisture conditions. Text revised in Section VI. Treatments, experimental design, and 

hypotheses and Section VIII. Analysis methods.

Comment 6: Since this project is within the range of the spotted owl and there is a new spotted owl 

recovery plan, the study design should reflect the new plan and strive to provide managers with useful 

information such as how to strategically configure fuel treatments to both protect existing owl habitat and 

recruit future habitat, and how to reduce fuels while still providing habitat for owl prey. The final owl 

recovery plan includes "A pioneering approach to habitat management of federal land on the dry east side 

that maintains northern spotted owl habitat in a fire-prone landscape." East of the crest of the Cascades, 

the recovery plan calls for maintaining 30-35% of "dry" forest types that are habitat-capable (and 50-75 of 

the "moist" forest types habitat-capable) as high quality owl habitat. Outside of the high quality habitat the 

objective is to restore ecological processes and functions, and reduce the potential for significant losses 

by stand-replacement fires, insects, and disease. Treatments could be designed to test these recovery 

plan recommendations. A copy of the Recovery Plan and other related materials can be found at 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/NSORecoveryPlanning.htm. The heavy 

thinning and removal of material contemplated by this study plan might conflict with the recovery plan 

objectives to retain medium sized trees for future recruitment of large trees and dead wood that supports 

owls and their prey. Relevant aspects of the final recovery plan that might be reviewed include the 

importance of conserving "mature and old trees" (p 22); "old trees regardless of diameter" (p110); 

"maintain medium and large tree structure" (p 112); "smaller size classes of fire tolerant species provide 

the recruitment resource" (pp 23, 109); removing canopy fuels is "least important" and can "appropriately 

be ignored in owl habitat to maintain prey habitat and closed canopy owl habitat." (p 109); "focus on 

thinning stands created by past harvest" (p 23); "most forest landscapes, even in dry ponderosa pine 

environments, included some level of mixed and high severity wildfire under natural conditions" (p 104); 

"maintenance of both meso- and fine-scale patchiness among and within stands." (pp 107, 110); 

"incorporate spatial heterogeneity of dry forest stand structure into restoration treatments" (p 112); outside 

of high quality owl habitat patches "maintain structural conditions supporting prey occurrence and 

abundance in current or potential NRF habitat, maintain structural conditions conducive to Northern 

Spotted Owl foraging, and allow for rapid development of replacement NRF habitat." (pp 112-113); "lack 

of follow-up [fuel] treatments would likely increase fire risks quite dramatically" (p 113). 

Response: Pringle Falls Experimental Forest was administratively withdrawn from consideration within 

the Northwest Forest Plan; it is not subject to management direction under the Northwest Forest Plan. All 

but a small portion in the southeastern corner of the Lookout Mountain Unit of Pringle Falls Experimental 

Forest lies within the designated range of the Northern Spotted Owl yet continued monitoring for Northern 

Spotted Owl has led to no detection. The proposed treatments conform to the 2008 Final Spotted Owl 

Recovery Plan recommendations for management of risks across large landscapes and restoration of fire 

tolerance in dry eastern Cascades forests of the Inland Northwest because the proposed treatments will 

reduce surface fuels that contribute to flame lengths and fireline intensity, increase the height to live 

crowns by a thin from below to eliminates fuel ladders that facilitate tree torching, and decrease crown 

density and thereby the likelihood of running crown fires. Although not specifically addressed as a 

management issue, Northern Spotted Owl habitat values and considerations are built into the proposed 

research by way of comparisons in structural development among different treatments, especially 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan Reconciliation: page 5 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 46
treatment 3 (50% of UMZ) and treatment 4 (multicohort), because these treatments will likely provide the 

greatest contrast in accelerated development of large tree diameters, ladder and mid-canopy structure, 

and spatial heterogeneity. 

Comment 7: Are future maintenance treatments planned? If not, the benefits of protecting the old science 

projects on the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest may not be realized. If so, such treatments should be 

disclosed up front and the cumulative impacts considered. Mechanical or prescribed fire? How will future 

treatments to maintain fuel levels affect data continuity and the study design? 

Response: Future maintenance treatments can easily be conceived but are specifically not planned (the 

previous entry was about 40 years ago). Both mechanical and prescribed fire are methods that will be 

used for treating surface fuels; unit-level treatment plans will be developed to account for specific fuelbed 

characteristics resulting from the addition of activity fuels. Nothing in this study plan precludes future, 

higher priority research from occurring within the Lookout Mountain Unit of Pringle Falls Experimental 

Forest. Text added in Section VI. Treatments, experimental design, and hypotheses to clarify the nature 

of future treatments to maintain surface and ladder fuels and to realign future stand structure.

Comment 8: The study plan seeks to understand vegetation dynamics, but these are long-lived forests 

that experience significant changes that are sometimes long and slow to develop. The study plan 

indicates an intention to collect data for only 5 years post-treatment, which is likely too short of a period to 

provide meaningful information on the long-slow vegetation dynamics like future snag recruitment or lack 

thereof (which typically lags far behind the period of increased tree vigor following thinning), or the 

stimulation of growth of future ladder fuels triggered by canopy reductions that increase the availability of 

light, water, and nutrients. 

Response: I agree these are long-lived forests; the proposed treatments shift development trajectories 

toward 600-year-old stands. Many vegetation dynamics such as snag recruitment or re-establishment of 

fuel ladders will become evident only after decades of monitoring. Other responses such as windthrow or 

accelerated diameter growth may be evident in the short term and provide a basis for predicting future 

outcomes. Longer-term monitoring that will be essential to address research questions 1, 2, 3, and 4

beyond the first five years, is described in new text in Section XIII. Personnel assignment, time of 

completion, and cost. Current staffing and funding limitations preclude obligation of resources beyond the 

near-term. 

Comment 9: The first research question address forest resiliency, but it is unclear how or when resiliency 

will be measured. It would be best to measure resiliency in terms of tree survival over several natural 

disturbance cycles, but this research is too brief, and judging by the concerns about protection of the old 

research plots, aggressive fire suppression will likely continue. Restoration of forest structure in the 

absence of restored processes like fire may not be very effective in the long run. 

Response: Restoration of radial growth leading to development of large trees and reintroduction of 

surface fire will help ensure these stands are on development trajectories leading to 600-year-old stands. 

Specific portions of Lookout Mountain, such as the Level-of-Growing-Stock study plots, will receive 

continued fire protection. While an overall goal of resiliency exists, clearly defined research objectives 

carry specific responses or outcomes. Objective 1 is assessed by diameter growth, objective 2 is 

assessed by changes in plant species, objective 3 is assessed by seedling density, objective 4 is 

assessed by tree mortality, objective 5 is assessed by shrub density and biomass, and the final objective 

is assessed by changes in stand structure. 

Comment 10: How will the effect of climate change be measured when there is no control? Warming, 

drying, and CO2 enrichment cannot be excluded from the control plots. Understory vegetation will 

respond to both mechanical disturbance and climate change. How will the effects of disturbance be 

separated from the effects of climate? 

Response: Climate change is not considered a treatment; there is not provision of a control for assessing 

climate change. Treatments create new structural conditions within which understory vegetation dynamics 

can be monitored. The key response of interest is a shift in plant community composition, specifically an 

upward shift in a mapped ecotone or upward movement of specific plant species irregardless of 

treatment. Text added in Section VI. Treatments, experimental design, and hypotheses to better clarify 

the nature of expected vegetation shifts.

Lookout Mountain Study Plan Reconciliation: page 6 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 47
Comment 11: Experimental controls are very important. We suggest an alternative study design that 

monitors mostly the natural development of such uncommon stands with far less of the area manipulated. 

What is the justification for halving the size of the control plots? We think that control plots are critically 

important to ensure valid research results and to protect places where natural succession and mortality 

processes are allowed to play out. 

Response: The assignment of “control” status to certain units is an arbitrary nomenclature used here for 

ease of study design interpretation. Use of this term is made while fully acknowledging a history of past 

treatments, including thinning and fire exclusion. It implies a no-action treatment. “Control” units at 

Lookout Mountain do not represent areas where natural development or lack of manipulation has 

occurred, nor are they places where natural succession and mortality processes have been allowed to 

occur. Large control units have an inherent risk from multiple disturbance threats and present an indirect 

risk to adjacent treated units because of contagion influences. Control units only have short-term value in 

helping to evaluate the overall effect of treatments. More important contrasts will be among actively 

treated structures, such as annual radial growth in Treatment 3 > Treatment 2 > Treatment 1 for question 

1, residual tree mortality in Treatment 1 > Treatment 2 > Treatment 3 > Treatment 4 for question 4, and 

windthrow and stem breakage in residual trees from wind in Treatment 3 > Treatment 2 > Treatment 1> 

Treatment 4 for question 6. Thus, the value of controls within the context of this study is short-term. Text 

added to Section VI. Treatments, experimental design, and hypotheses to clarify this condition. 

Comment 12: The study plan says that the first research question will impose "surrogates for low and 

mixed severity disturbance," but the proposed treatments do not leave behind dead woody material as 

would a natural disturbance, nor does the study plan make clear how the naturally patchy, clumpy pattern 

of pine forests will be replicated. We urge consideration of some truly creative forest restoration 

techniques that would do some limited pretreatment (strategically removing some fuels to protect some 

resources, while concentrating fuels in other areas with an intention of killing vegetation) followed by 

reintroduction of fire with an anticipation of killing a portion of the trees, NOT followed by salvage logging, 

i.e. natural thinning by prescribed fire. 

Response: Proposed treatments are not designed as techniques to restore the stand structure to any 

specific target or reference condition but rather to begin a long-term process of incorporating disturbance 

events and ensuring stands are on developmental trajectories that extend toward 600-year age classes. 

Quantification of dead woody material left behind after any natural disturbance in any 160-year-old 

ponderosa pine stand having similar density and diameter distribution is lacking. Currently the stands lack 

large numbers of standing dead or large down woody fuels. Old-growth ponderosa pine stands in the 

surrounding area have either random or clumped spatial distributions. A thin from below as proposed will 

retain the existing spatial distribution of the canopy trees. This is clarified by adding new text to Section 

VI. Treatments, experimental design, and hypotheses. Target conditions and hypothesized temporal 

development in the form of projections from FVS simulations added to the end of Section VI. Treatments, 

experimental design, and hypotheses. 

Comment 13: I don't know enough about statistical design, but what is the impact of halving the size of 

treatment 4 (free thinning to create multi-age stands)? Would it make more sense to have fewer treatment 

types and more replicates? 

Response: Consideration of size and number of experimental units included operational limitations, use 

of natural features and existing roads as boundaries, and opportunities to create stands with distinct 

structure as platforms for future research. Experimental units are nested within larger operational 

treatment units. The option to expand in the future treatment 4 into those units currently proposed as 

treatment 5 is stated in VI. Treatments, experimental design, and hypotheses.

Reviewer 5 

Comment 1: Although the paragraph on p.6 describes studies that have used underburning, there is no 

description of what specifically is meant by the term. The severity, timing, pattern of underburns are all 

undocumented. There isn’t any mention of mowing either. One might assume that a tractor of some type 

mows the underbrush but there are no details on this process. The mowing process should be defined 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan Reconciliation: page 7 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 48
and its method of application described. Information similar to what was supplied for the thinning process 

is helpful and should be included. See a related discussion under methods. 

Response: Underburning is a widely applied activity and this study plan intentionally does not constrain 

its applicability. Unit-level burning plans will be developed to account for activity fuels added during 

thinning, these burning plans will specifically address fire intensity, ignition patterns, and timing within 

closely monitored burning prescription elements such as relative humidity, wind, fuel moisture, and 

temperature. Mowing of shrubs and ladder fuels is conducted operationally on the Deschutes National 

Forest, sometimes as a single treatment and sometimes as a precursor to underburning. Text added to 

Section VI. Treatments, experimental design, and hypotheses to better describe these fuel reduction 

methods. 

Comment 2: Throughout the study plan the author refers to the “imminent risk of catastrophic loss” due 

either to insect infestation or fire. This is very inflammatory (!) language that is not accurate. The plan 

reads as though the author is trying very hard to elicit an emotional response that unless the thinning 

occurs this forest will be destroyed. There is no documentation in the plan that describes the distribution 

or types of naturally occurring fire starts that could occur - I presume that large fires in this region are 

mainly due to lightening. Information about how often and at what intervals fires in general, and 

catastrophic fires, occur in this region is needed to support the claim of “imminent” risk. Certainly there is 

a higher risk that if a fire is started, it will burn more severely due to accumulated fuel and perhaps current 

weather patterns. But there is no documentation in the study plan describing the likelihood of a fire 

starting. This language should be revised to more accurately reflect what is true. In particular, a 

conclusion at the end of the first paragraph on page 12 “Thinning and fuel reduction treatments on about 

3,000 acres (1413 ha) of Lookout Mountain are needed to protect and enhance future research 

opportunities” is stated with certainty when in fact it is NOT certain at all. A more accurate statement is 

something like “Thinning and fuel reduction treatments on about 3,000 acres (1413 ha) of Lookout 

Mountain are could (or may) protect and enhance future research opportunities. The author should revise 

the tone of the study plan accordingly. 

Response: “Imminent risk of catastrophic loss” terminology was taken directly from the definition of 

stocking levels for the Deschutes National Forest based on Stand Density Index, and refers only to loss of 

the current overstory to bark beetles. Both lightning and human-caused ignitions are responsible for 

wildfires on the Deschutes National Forest. Notable recent fires include Eyerly (23,573 acres) and Cache 

Mountain (3,894) in 2002 and Davis (21,181 acres), Link (3,574 acres), 18 (3,800 acres), and the B&B 

complex (90,769 acres) in 2003. In one single storm event in August 2003, 53 fires were started by 

lightning, resulting in suppression activity. Historical disturbance regimes (both insects and fire) are well 

documented in the study plan. Likelihood of a fire starting from lightning is discussed by Agee (1993); 

lightning data for central Oregon is available from Vaisala's U.S. National Lightning Detection Network, a 

lightning information system monitoring cloud-to-ground lightning activity across the continental United 

States, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. While wildfire and insect outbreaks are not a 100% certainty, 

there is a recognized risk from both fire and insects and this risk increases with time. This plan proposes 

a set of treatments designed to manage this risk. Text added to Section IV. Management issues to better 

describe these risks from bark beetles and wildfire. 

Comment 3: Section V indicates that long-term responses and susceptibility are important parts of this 

study. However, there is no mention in the methods about what “long-term” means in an operational 

sense and how this study will address the long-term component. Descriptions of methods for treatment 

application and data collection are provided for up to 5 years post treatment but that is all. Specific 

research questions listed on page 13 do not include any aspects of temporal scale in them. So it is left to 

me to assume that they relate only to the 5-year post treatment timeline. Therefore I cannot see how the 

long-term goals are going to be addressed. Either remove the reference to long-term effects (a significant 

reduction to the plan) or add information to address: a. What questions are “long-term”, b. What is the 

long-term scale, c. What measurements are planned at this scale, d. The definition of any long-term 

manipulations. 

Response: The first four questions or objectives are now stated as long-term objective, while questions 5 

and 6 may be addressed in the near-term. Text added to VI. Treatments, experimental design, and 

hypotheses for clarification. Longer-term monitoring that will be essential to address research questions 

1, 2, 3, and 4 beyond the first five years is described in new text in Section XIII. Personnel assignment, 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan Reconciliation: page 8 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 49
time of completion, and cost. Current staffing and funding limitations preclude obligation of resources 

beyond the near-term.

Comment 4: There is no specific description of the method(s) for burning and mowing. When are these 

ground treatments applied? How soon after thinning? How are they regulated? What are the target goals 

for wood and vegetation removal? No information is supplied to help a reader know what the author 

intends to do. Table 2 is identified as treatment guidelines but it pertains only to the thinning treatments – 

it should include burning and mowing shouldn’t it? Since burning and mowing are integral to broad 

research goal of this study they must be addressed in analogous detail to thinning in this plan. Currently 

they are not. 

Response: See response to Comment #1 of this reviewer. Text added in Section VI. Treatments, 

experimental design, and hypotheses to clarify the nature of future treatments to maintain surface and 

ladder fuels. 

Comment 5: On page 14 under the description of the fourth treatment there is a sentence that says 

“Additional ground fuel reduction using a combination of mowing and underburning may or may not be 

incorporated in the near-term and will be evaluated as an additional activity in the mid-term.” This 

sentence requires further explanation. Why might it be considered? What conditions would warrant it? 

What is ‘midterm’? 

Response: Any consideration of further fuel reduction will need to incorporate consideration of any newly 

established seedling cohort. Since the short-term objective of this treatment is to establish a new seedling 

cohort, mowing and underburning may be counter-productive and may be postponed until seedling size 

and density are of sufficient size that burning would cause only limited mortality. 

Comment 6: The statistical design and analysis (and hence the statistical model that is used) is identified 

as a randomized block design. But this is not correct. The problem is that there are not 5 treatment stands 

to which one of each treatment is assigned within each block. There are only 4 stands. After the random 

assignment of treatments 1 to 4, the 4th treatment unit is “split” and one half is randomly assigned to 

treatment 4 and the other half to treatment 5 (control). The use of randomization is excellent and used 

appropriately. But the splitting of one unit in each block into 2 units which are then assigned to one of two 

treatments has a number of major consequences for the analysis. The author states “Control and all-aged 

units were specifically designed to be half the size of other treatment units” but never explains why. I 

checked with a silviculturist who did not think the treatments required different sized plots to be effective. 

This “splitting” does not appear to be a critical element of this study. Its main reason for existence seems 

to be to be able to fit in all 5 treatments. In fact, “splitting” could end up being a costly thing to do and may 

make some comparisons among treatments very difficult or impossible to do. 

Response: The statistical design and planned analysis was reviewed and approved by the PNW Station 

Statistician. There are 5 treatment units within each block because they were delineated as such. Units 

assigned treatments 4 and 5 were specifically designed to be smaller in size because a large, untreated 

block preserves the inherent risk of beetle-caused or fire-cause mortality for which the treatments are 

planned to reduce. Text added in Section VI. Treatments, experimental design, and hypotheses to clarify 

the basis for different treatment unit sizes. As the reviewer suggests, it was more efficient to assign the 

set of treatments as an entire group to the set of units within each block. The approach was to assume 

that variation among units was the same regardless of unit size. 

Comment 7: Study should provide information relevant to the scientific and land management 

communities The study plan makes a case that a thinning study in this relatively old dry forest would 

provide information necessary for good management of older stands (bottom of p.6 and onto p.7). Most of 

the argument for the study however, seems to focus on “if we don’t thin, it will be damaged by insects or 

fire. I don’t see this argument as a primary reason to conduct the study. The rationale for the study should 

focus on how the study as designed is the best way to address the specific questions that are identified 

(i.e., p.13). The background section supplies some of this but it is not very specific. The author needs to 

relate the specific research questions (p.13) to the needs that are described. The strong emphasis on the 

“imminent threat” should be lessened as well. The plan also argues that one advantage of this study is 

that, by being on an experimental forest, there is a potential for long-term study. However, as noted 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan Reconciliation: page 9 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 50
above, there is no documentation of this (beyond 5 years) so I don’t see that this claim can be made for 

this study. 

Response: This study plan provides a justification and a design for a set of studies to address questions 

of vegetation dynamics in relatively young stands and thereby provide insight into management options 

for better management of similarly aged stands. There is considerable text devoted to describing 

management issues within Pringle Falls Experimental Forest; this material is intended as background and 

should not confused with Section V. Research goals and questions, and Section VI. Treatments, 

experimental design, and hypotheses. Text in Section IV. Management issues revised to clarify the use of 

“imminent threat” terminology. Hypotheses seem sufficiently well-developed. See response to comment 3 

of this reviewer. 

Comment 8: Scope of Inference- The current study has a complex but limited scope of inference. This 

scope applies to all conclusions and to all research and management questions that are asked. The 

questions that can be answered by the study design are only in the context of the population represented 

by the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. Therefore, broad brush conclusions can only be made by 

extrapolation and scientific expertise, not on the basis of this study. This point needs to be made clearer 

by rephrasing the research questions to reflect the scope of inference. 

Response: I agree that the direct scope of inference is the Lookout Mountain Unit of Pringle Falls 

Experimental Forest. This direct scope of inference is thus the same as any other study located in a 

single site, regardless of replication of units and randomization of treatments. Extension of any inference 

will be made through the use of similarity in environments such as plant association. On this basis, work 

at Lookout Mountain will have wide applicability in stands of similar structure throughout the Deschutes 

and Fremont-Winema National Forests. Text added to Section III. Study area description to clarify scope. 

Comment 9: Please also judge the likelihood that the study, as planned, will achieve its objectives. This 

study has lofty goals and somewhat overstates its ability to inform science. The objectives cannot be 

answered in general, but they can be in the context of this particular forest setting. This information has 

value and will be important to managers. The specific answers that are obtained are likely not the one 

and only answer to the actually broad (not specific) questions listed on p.13. However, it is likely to be 

able to answer questions about stand development after the planned disturbances 1-5 years post 

disturbance. However, the potential for greater value lies in the fact that this study can be observed over 

many years and other scientists from other disciplines may wish to collaborate in this area. See for 

example, Ganio and Puettman 2008 - Large-scale forestry experiments and the hierarchy of objectives. 

Sustainable Forestry, for a discussion of the considerations of large scale collaborative studies. 

Response: I agree, and note some of the obvious opportunities for collaboration in Section XV. Ancillary 

or related research opportunities. 

Reviewer 6 

Comment 1: Background and literature – From a silviculture point of view, the write-ups certainly seem 

adequate. However, the discussion of fuels, fuel treatments, disturbances, the ecological roles of 

disturbances, and the potential impacts of climate change is a little short, and could be beefed up. Some 

of the references seem less relevant than they could be; e.g., McCullough et al. (1998) address primarily 

northern and boreal forests. My guess is that the forests at Pringle Falls would not be considered either. 

Response: In addition to Canadian boreal forests and Alaskan taiga and coastal forests, this paper 

addresses insects in forests of the Pacific Northwest, the Inland West, and the Northern Rockies. It is very 

relevant. 

Comment 2: The overarching objective of this study is “to determine the nature of short and longer-term 

responses.... to thinning and fuel reduction...” and to evaluate the effects of these treatments on “longterm susceptibility to fire, insects, wind, climate change, and other forest disturbances.” These 

overarching objectives are followed by a list of more specific research questions or objectives. I believe 

the objectives that are listed are important, timely, and especially useful to planners and project level 

decision makers. But, I do have a few points that I believe would be helpful to address, and might improve 

this study plan. My comments that follow pertain to the specific research questions that are listed on page 

13. Research Question 1: What set of fuel reduction treatments best accelerates the development of 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan Reconciliation: page 10 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 51
large trees while reintroducing natural disturbance processes that provide greater ecosystem resiliency? 

The working hypothesis is “treatments that remove greater levels of tree density eventually result in 

greater mean annual basal area growth, or more simply, removing more small trees should allow the 

residual trees to grow to larger diameters.” I note the phrase “surrogates for low and mixed severity 

disturbances,” which I assume means that thinning is the surrogate for natural disturbance. I can imagine 

someone arguing that biotic disturbances are much more complex than tree removal by thinning and that 

the assumption of surrogacy can be challenged. I suggest that the author include a discussion of this 

relationship in the background section to help set the scene, and explain why his proposed treatments 

equate to natural disturbances. Otherwise, this proposed study might seem to be a thinning effort 

supplemented with fuel reduction by mowing and prescribed burning. Also, it is not clear how natural 

disturbance processes are reintroduced and how will resiliency be measured? 

Response: In the context of the proposed set of studies, the combination of thinning, mowing, and 

underburning, with thinning applied at different levels, provides a set of surrogates for low and mixed 

severity disturbance on which comparisons will be conducted. The first research question addresses the 

reintroduction of low to mix-severity disturbance resulting from underburning, and the subsequent 

changes that occur through time. We know that young ponderosa pine stands respond positively to 

density reduction (Cochran and Barrett 1999). We know what historical fire frequencies were for 

ponderosa pine forests under natural disturbance regimes (4 to 11 years near Pringle Butte). We do not 

know how stands with the current structure will respond to a combination of thinning, mowing and 

underburning. There is no intent to equate the proposed treatments with natural disturbances. Text added 

in Section VI. Treatments, experimental design, and hypotheses to clarify that surrogates for low and 

mixed severity disturbances refers to the set of treatments that combines thinning, mowing, and 

underburning. 

Comment 3: What is the influence of climate change interacting with a set of fuel reduction treatments on 

vegetation dynamics and forest structure? The topic of climate and climate change is not adequately 

addressed in the background section, and nothing “climatic” is proposed to be measured during the study. 

How would climate be measured? How will vegetation change be linked to climate? How long will 

measurements be taken? A clever placement of plots and periodic monitoring might elicit evidence of a 

climate connection, but it seems like this is a long shot. In short, I think I understand the “sense” of this 

objective, but I am not sure how the details would factor out. 

Response: Efforts to identify specific changes as a result of climate change will require long-term 

monitoring of permanent plots. To the extent that homogeneous plant associations and specific indicator 

or unique species can be identified and ecotones mapped, then all species have an equal opportunity to 

move either to warmer and drier or cooler and moister sites as climate changes. The reviewer is correct 

that no direct climate variables are measured. Instead, vegetation composition, a result of past and 

current integration of the full influence of climate, will be periodically assessed. Text added in Section VI. 

Treatments, experimental design, and hypotheses to better clarify the nature of expected vegetation shifts 

that may result from climate change. 

Comment 4: Do multi-cohort stands share the same risks of multiple, interacting stresses as singlecohort stands? The author presents the following working hypothesis “... climate change and insects, and 

perhaps fire, will interact to increase tree mortality in control units, density management will prolong large 

tree mortality, and selection cutting will provide the greatest degree of resiliency to the interaction of 

climate change, insects, and fire.” It is unclear how different stresses will be identified and measured, or 

how to describe their interactions. If two different stresses occur at the same time in the same place, does 

that mean they interact? If two different stresses occur at different times and/or in different places, can 

they interact? 

Response: Recent work using structural equation modeling after thinning and underburning 

(Youngblood, Grace, and McIver, in press, Ecological Applications) has shown the effect of fire and 

insects leading to tree mortality. This same approach will be used. Text added in Section VI. Treatments, 

experimental design, and hypotheses to clarify use of SEM for assessing multiple stressing agents.

Comment 5: In general, treatments involving thinning vary from something called the “UMZ,” but details 

about the fuels treatments (mowing and underburning) are mostly lacking. My impression is that the latter 

will not vary across plots. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan Reconciliation: page 11 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 52
Response: Text describing mowing and planned underburning added to Section VI. Treatments, 

experimental design, and hypotheses. 

Comment 6: The analysis methods is a little short on description. Will fuels be partitioned by fuel type 

and summarized by volume? How will treatment be related to residual fuels? How will insect, disease, 

wind, and other disturbances be measured and monitored. How will different natural disturbances be 

identified? Some language about how your analyses methods relate to your hypotheses would be useful. 

I assume this plan has been reviewed by a statistician. Use of MRPP or some multivariate ANOVA seems 

appropriate. I am not familiar with NMS, but if it is a form of MDS then the write up describing how it will 

be used to compare treatments could be a little more complete. 

Response: Text added to Section VIII. Analysis methods stating that fuels will be analyzed by using the 

FCCS tool. Mortality associated with different causes is the variable of interest rather than the disturbance 

agent itself. Text added to Section VIII. Analysis methods to better describe use of NMS. 

Comment 7: Relevancy of study to management – To me, this is a strong point (among many strong 

points) of this study plan. This study is clearly aimed at answering management questions while retaining 

research “feel.” It mediates risks to long term existing studies. It performs routine forest stand 

maintenance at the same time it generates research data – two birds with one stone.... Whatmore, it 

seems to address all the listed management issues; it enhances vigor and reduces risk to catastrophic 

disturbances; it protects long-term on-going research studies. It also protects research opportunities, but 

does so at the risk of limiting future research options. I would guess the compromise is unavoidable. The 

cooperation with the forest is notable. It seems like a real win-win situation.

Response: Thank you. I agree that there is some risk of limiting future research options, but creating and 

maintaining large blocks forest that differ in structure will likely provide more opportunities for research 

than the results of a bark beetle outbreak or a stand replacement wildfire. 

Reviewer 7 

Comment 1: The background and literature review section of the draft plan is well written and referenced 

but makes no reference to at least one important element that should have been included: spatial 

heterogeneity. There are many important structural elements of a resilient ponderosa pine forest that are 

addressed here, such as basal area and dominance by large trees. Historically such stands were also 

characterized by high levels of spatial heterogeneity within the stand; that is, the naturally resilient forests 

found on the dry forest sites subject to frequent low- to mixed-severity fire were mosaics of fine-scale, low 

contrast structural patches (Franklin and Fites-Kaufman 1996; Franklin and Van Pelt 2005; Johnson, 

Franklin and Johnson 2008). Spatial analyses of stems often generally indicate that such stands are 

spatially aggregated even though larger trees may exhibit an even spacing. 

Response: The reviewer is correct that late successional and old-growth ponderosa pine stands typically 

exhibit either clumped or random spatial point patterns of large trees (see Youngblood et al. 2004). This 

point is not relevant, however, because Lookout Mountain does not currently support late successional or 

old growth forests. While the proposed research is intended to assess the efficacy of treatments intended 

to accelerate the development of late successional and old-growth structure, there is no single set of 

reference conditions on which the development is targeted. The metric of interest is the change in 

structure, not the endpoint of some trajectory. Units assigned thin from below prescriptions under 

treatments 1, 2, and 3 will be marked to retain the existing spatial distribution of dominant and 

codominant trees; any clumped or random distribution of large trees will be preserved. Text describing 

consideration of spatial patterns added to Section VI. Treatments, experimental design, and hypotheses. 

An interesting ancillary study would be to assess spatial point patterns after thin from below treatments 

are implemented. 

Comment 2: There are other significant issues that the background/literature review might address, since 

the plan alludes to the goal of addressing the important issues that are a part of restoring sustainable 

conditions in the Dry Forests (ponderosa, Douglas-fir, and dry mixed-conifer plant associations) of 

eastern OR and WA. One of these is that of providing habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl, even though it 

Lookout Mountain itself is probably outside of the range of the owl. Maintaining suitable habitat for the owl 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan Reconciliation: page 12 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 53
is one of the major challenges in the Dry Forests, since the habitat that it requires is, by its very character, 

potentially subject to stand-replacement fire. 

Response: A portion of the proposed study area is currently mapped as Northern Spotted owl nesting, 

roosting, and foraging habitat. While not specifically addressed as a research objective, there is an 

opportunity to examine the treatment response with respect to short-term changes in specific NSO habitat 

attributes. This can be accomplished within the bounds of the existing study design. 

Comment 3: Another challenging issue but unaddressed issue is how to restore fire to forests that have 

been free of fire for a century or more without creating excessive mortality in the dominant pine trees; this 

is more of an issue where there is a population of old-growth trees but I imagine that it is an issue even in 

this mature stand. There would be an opportunity here to look at alternative methods of protecting trees 

(scratch line, water line, foam, rake accumulations of bark) and compare rates of mortality when nothing 

is done. 

Response: I agree that this opportunity exists within the bounds of the existing study design, but it is 

beyond the scope of the study as proposed. Evaluation of alternative tree protection methods, while not 

part of the main study, could comprise an area of ancillary research, should the resources become 

available. 

Comment 4: In last paragraph on page 5 of the literature review, much more could be said to elaborate, 

“timber harvest,” particularly to explicitly recognize the importance of plantation establishment as a factor 

in creating the problems that we face today. Many of our problem areas were not the result of passive 

activity, but our overt and successful efforts to convert “under-stocked natural stands” to dense, “fully 

stocked” stands by clear-cutting and planting. 

Response: I agree, and text added to Section II. Background. to be more inclusive.

Comment 5: Shouldn’t the over-arching objective of restoring a functional and sustainable ecosystem be 

included under the listed “management issues (p. 8). 

Response: Legislation creating experimental forests provides for testing of hypotheses, so of which may 

fail to meet a criteria of ecosystem functionality and sustainability. Listing this overarching objective would 

restrict future research opportunities. 

Comment 6: The broad goal of “restoring resiliency ecosystems” is restated at the beginning of the 

section on Research goals and Questions (p. 13) but it doesn’t seem to me that the proposed treatments 

in the following section reflect that broader goal. Rather, the treatments seem to me to have a traditional 

tree and fuel-centric focus, as opposed to a focus on ecosystem restoration. Specifically the experiment is 

about growing a uniform stand of larger-diameter trees that has a reduced probability of stand 

replacement fire or bark beetle epidemic. Nothing wrong with those objectives but the experiment comes 

across in content and emphasis as what have might have been proposed in a timber-production oriented 

experiment ten or twenty years ago. 

Response: The full goal statement under Section V. Research goals and questions is refining 

management options for restoring resiliency in forest ecosystems. The focus is on identifying the effects 

of a set of commonly applied treatments under carefully described conditions such that the applicability of 

the treatments is better understood. There are a multitude of processes that could be examined for their 

contribution to ecosystem resiliency. This study focuses on processes critical for resiliency in forest 

ecosystems: fuel accumulation and fuel reduction associated with treatments and long-term changes 

resulting from changes in stand structure, burning, spatial distribution in understory species and any shifts 

resulting from climate change, structural changes, especially diameter distributions, tree mortality, large 

woody fuel accumulation, understory species composition, shrub biomass and density, and latent 

changes in stand structure because of wind, insects, and fire. This type of research is more difficult than 

traditional timber-production oriented work because of the incongruity between desired vegetation 

conditions and the conditions and patterns that have developed in response to land uses and 

management of disturbance regimes that have been imposed without full, integrated knowledge and due 

consideration of ecosystem responses. 

Comment 7: These days many proposed restoration treatments in dry forests involve variable density 

marking of stands and thinning from above. Would there be some possibility of incorporating some 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan Reconciliation: page 13 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 54
vertical and horizontal heterogeneity in treatment? Many restoration proposals recommend leaving parts 

of stands untreated (the controls do provide some of that), but at widely varying spatial scales within the 

stand and at the landscape level. 

Response: There are good ideas that deserve consideration when the objective is to restore stands or 

landscapes to some reference condition. The stated research questions or objectives do not include 

restoration of stands at Lookout Mountain to some specific reference condition. 

Comment 8: What about alternatives to what I interpret as broadcast burning? It is certainly apparent that 

activity fuels need to be treated but would there be some merit in looking at alternative treatments of 

ground fuels, such as piling and burning or mastication? We are not going to be able to broadcast burn as 

much and everywhere we might like, so seems to me that we ought to be looking at alternatives. I have 

already mentioned the idea of testing different approaches to protecting some or all of the dominant trees; 

certainly it is a more important issue where old-growth trees are part of the mix but it is still important. 

Response: There is an opportunity to explore options for fuel reduction after thinning. This proposed set 

of treatments attempts of use a uniform approach to mowing and burning so that the effect of thinning to 

different residual densities is most strongly reflected. Other researchers could use the existing platform 

created by the set of thinning treatments to superimpose a set of post-thinning fuel reduction treatments 

at something other than the landscape scale as currently proposed. 

Comment 9: Regarding the third question on shifting from single- to multi-cohort stands: Would I choose 

to begin such a conversion with the proposed regeneration prescription? It certainly would not be my first 

choice. One thing that I certainly would do is to attempt to begin building in some “gaps” – taking 

advantage of incipient openings where they exist and initiating some where they do not exist. These 

would be very small openings (e.g., 1⁄4 acre on average). I would certainly incorporate some completely 

untreated patches, as well (and I don’t just mean regeneration patches). 

Response: Creation of gaps was implied in the description of this proposed treatment. Text added to 

Section VI. Treatments, experimental design, and hypotheses to explicitly state that canopy gaps will be 

created under this treatment. The goal of creating these gaps, and reducing density in all size classes, is 

to provide a site for establishment of a new seedling cohort. 

Comment 10: Research on silvicultural activities to encourage the ecological development of mature 

even-aged ponderosa pine stands is certainly needed. Although mature stands are not a dominant 

condition in the pine forests of eastern Washington and Oregon they do occur with some regularity. The 

Yakama Nation has an extensive even-aged stand in the Cedar Valley section of the reservation, for 

example. Furthermore, there are many more even-aged (or at least even-sized) stands of second-growth 

ponderosa pine developing on heavily harvested forest lands to which this research might eventually be 

relevant. 

Response: Thank you for pointing out these other places where this work might be equally relevant. Text 

added to Section III. Study area description to incorporate this statement.

Comment 11: The research that is proposed here seems quite traditional, however. It is focused primarily 

on one basic treatment (thinning from below) at varying intensities and on a single regeneration 

treatment. It does not explicitly incorporate any element of spatial heterogeneity. As noted, it looks a lot 

like a study plan that could have been written a decade or two ago. It does effectively address 

management issues related to the Lookout Mountain block in terms of providing for improved survival of 

the stands in relation to fire and bark beetles. If that is the real objective of the study, than I would say that 

the proposed design is adequate. If the intent is to develop information relevant to key questions in 

restoring dry forest ecosystems, than some additional thinking would be in order. This is a very large 

investment of land and forest and it would be desirable to squeeze as much valuable information as 

possible out of the investment. 

Response: As stated in Section V. Research goals and questions, the broad goal of this project is to 

refine management options for restoring resiliency in forest ecosystems. Under this broad goal, planned 

research will determine the nature of short and longer-term responses of forest vegetation and processes 

to thinning and fuel reduction in ponderosa pine stands, and evaluate the effects of thinning and fuel 

reduction treatments on long-term susceptibility to fire, insects, wind, climate change, and other forest 

disturbances. This study focuses on processes critical for resiliency in forest ecosystem: fuel 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan Reconciliation: page 14 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 55
accumulation and fuel reduction associated with treatments and long-term changes resulting from 

changes in stand structure, burning, spatial distribution in understory species and any shifts resulting from 

climate change, structural changes, especially diameter distributions, tree mortality, large woody fuel 

accumulation, understory species composition, shrub biomass and density, and latent changes in stand 

structure because of wind, insects, and fire. Increased knowledge in restoring resiliency in forest 

ecosystems is directly applicable to restoring dry forest ecosystems regardless of what target or reference 

condition one chooses. 

Lookout Mountain Study Plan Reconciliation: page 15 

EXF FEIS Appendix B page 56