Ecological Research at 

the Goosenest Adaptive 

Management Area in 

Northeastern California

Martin W. Ritchie 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical 

Report

PSW-GTR-192

May 2005
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, 

and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, 

sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or 

part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not 

all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of 

Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or 

call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.

Author

Martin W. Ritchie is a Research Statistician and Science Team Leader with the 

Pacific Southwest Research Station’s Western Forest Management Unit, 3644 

Avtech Parkway, Redding CA 96002. email: mritchie@fs.fed.us.

Acknowledgments

Cooperators in this research include the USDA Forest Service’s Klamath National 

Forest (Goosenest Ranger District), Humboldt State University, University of 

Washington, Oregon State University, and the Wildlife Conservation Society. Helpful reviews were provided by Dr. Christopher Keyes, Dr. Christopher Fettig, Dr. 

William Laudenslayer, William Oliver, and Kathleen Harcksen.

.
Contents

1 In Brief

3 Introduction

5 Goosenest Adaptive Management Area

7 Interdisciplinary Team

11 Methods

13 Experimental Design

13 Treatment Implementation

19 Fire and Fire Surrogates

19 Activities

19 Wildlife Ecology

20 Vegetation Sampling

23 Entomology

25 Fire History

25 Results

26 How to Get Involved

26 References

Appendices

29 appendix A. Goosenest Adaptive Management Area Treatment Unit 

Locations and Treatment Unit Maps

51 appendix B. Treatment Unit Descriptions

57 appendix C. Treatment Unit Diameter Distributions at Establishment

65 appendix D. Implementing Treatments

65 D. 1. Treatment Specifications 

70 D. 2. Volume Removed

70 D. 3. Treatment Unit Diameter Distributions after 

 Establishment (2002)

83 appendix E. Tree Harvesting Operations; Dates of Thinning by 

 Treatment Units

85 appendix F. Understory Removal
87 appendix G. Burn Treatments for the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area

95 appendix H. Planted Openings

101 appendix I. Species Listings

101 Plants

104 Birds

107 Mammals

108 Amphibians

108 Reptiles

109 appendix J. Memorandum of Understanding
Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

In Brief...

Ritchie, Martin W. 2003. Ecological research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management 

Area in northeastern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-192. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 125 p.

Retrieval Terms: arthropods, bark beetles, forest health, forest management, forest restoration, passerine birds, ponderosa pine, prescribed fire, small mammals, stand development, stand 

structure, succession, thinning, white fir.

This paper describes the establishment of an interdisciplinary, large-scale ecological research project on the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area of the Klamath National Forest in 

northeastern California. This project is a companion to the Blacks Mountain Ecological Research 

Project described by Oliver (2000).

The genesis for this project was the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994a). As 

a part of the Northwest Forest Plan, a network of Adaptive Management Areas was created 

in Oregon, Washington, and northern California. One of the primary goals of the Goosenest 

Adaptive Management Area was to investigate means of accelerating the development of latesuccessional forest properties. 

Led by researchers from the Pacific Southwest Research Station in Redding, California, an interdisciplinary team of scientists designed an experiment to evaluate the use of mechanical treatments and prescribed fire to accelerate late-successional conditions in the Goosenest Adaptive 

Management Area. The experimental design features four treatments, each replicated five times. 

The treatment units are 100 acres (40.5 hectares), plus a buffer area of varying size, but generally 

close to 328 feet (100 meters) in width. The first of the four treatments features a thinning favoring 

the reestablishment of pine dominance in the forest (Pine-Emphasis Treatment). In this treatment 

the prescription favors the retention of dominant and codominant pine trees. The second treatment 

employs the same mechanical treatment as the Pine Emphasis, with the additional application of 

prescribed fire (Pine-Emphasis With Fire). A third treatment is a mechanical treatment intended 

to redistribute growth to the largest diameter trees without regard for species distribution (Large 

Tree Treatment). The fourth, and final, treatment is a control of no active management (Control 

Treatment), permitting the vegetation to continue along its current trajectory.

The last of the mechanical treatments were completed in 2000. The initial prescribed burn 

treatment was completed on the five Pine-Emphasis-with-Fire Treatments in fall 2001; these 

same five units will be reburned 5-10 years after the initial burn. The first post-treatment measurements of vegetation and wildlife were taken in summer 2002. Remeasurements are planned 

for a 5-year cycle for most forest attributes. Currently, however, birds and small mammals are 

observed yearly due to year-to-year variation in abundance common to these species. 



Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Introduction 

Existing forest structures and habitat are influenced by climate, topography, soil 

characteristics, and patterns of disturbance over time. These factors influence the 

productivity of the site as well as the species that may compete and thrive in any 

given area. Disturbance events will influence the species prevalence as well as the 

successional development of a forest. 

A number of common disturbance events might be observed in forested areas of 

northern California. Fire has historically had a significant effect on stand development. Although intense stand-replacing fires are certainly a part of the fire history, 

these have tended to be relatively infrequent events. Preliminary work at Blacks 

Mountain Experimental Forest (BMEF) indicates that relatively frequent low-intensity fires have been prevalent in northeastern California (Carl Skinner, personal 

communication, May 2003). These fires appear to have produced a mosaic of structures in the landscape that featured many areas with open park-like conditions, with 

little understory. Frequent low-intensity fires tend to favor the development of the 

more fire-tolerant species, such as ponderosa pine, while reducing the abundance of 

less fire-tolerant species such as white fir (Agee 1994). 

The Goosenest Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest is located in 

northeastern California near the Oregon border (fig. 1). The Goosenest Adaptive 

Management Area (AMA) was so designated by the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA 

and USDI 1994a). The AMA network was developed to provide managers with 

areas to test and evaluate effects of management activities, as they relate to forest plans and objectives. On the Goosenest AMA the effects of forest management 

(primarily logging and fire suppression) are evident. Much of the Adaptive Management Area was logged in the mid 1920s by the Long-Bell Lumber Company. 

Long-Bell operated a lumber mill in Weed, California, in the early 20th century 

and established a logging camp in Tennant in 1922 (Shoup 1981). The favored species for extraction at that time was ponderosa pine. This Adaptive Management 

Area was historically dominated by ponderosa pine with lesser amounts of white 

fir throughout the area. Occasionally sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana Dougl.) can be 

found in the AMA, but the distribution is not continuous. Red fir (Abies magnifica 

A. Murr.) is common in some of the higher elevation sites. In some of the lower elevations of the AMA, incense-cedar (Libocedrus decurrens Torr.), western juniper 

(Juniperus occidentalis Hook.), and (rarely) Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii

(Mirb.) Franco) may be found as well. Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Cougl. Ex. 

Loud.) is restricted to sites where cold air pools in the winter.

In the 20th century, fire suppression and logging have altered the historic pattern of stand development in many areas in northern California. Fire suppression, 


GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

while providing the benefits of a more stable supply of timber and improved air 

quality, also affects regeneration of trees and the species composition of understory 

vegetation. 

A fire regime with relatively frequent low-intensity fires tends to favor the 

maintenance of those tree species with thick bark and to retard the development of a 

dense understory by consuming brush and small trees. Ponderosa pine may develop thick bark at a fairly early age, making it well adapted to areas with frequent 

low-intensity fires. White fir, the other species commonly found on the Goosenest 

AMA, has thinner bark, which makes it more susceptible to fire-induced mortality (particularly at a young age). These fire regimes produce conditions favorable 

to species with a very short cycle from establishment to the age of reproductive 

capacity. It takes years for common shrubs like manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.) and 

ceanothus (Ceanothus spp.) to produce viable seed, and a species like white fir may 

take decades. Many grasses and forbs are able to reproduce relatively soon after 

becoming established and are thus more likely to thrive in areas where fires burn 

frequently. 

Figure 1 — Location of the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area.
Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

The removal of the pine overstory, along with the advent of effective fire suppression in the area, resulted in a shift from stands that were usually dominated by 

pine to those which have a much heavier representation of white fir that is prevalent 

through much of the area to this day. The stands left after harvesting were composed of white fir and smaller, subcommercial ponderosa pine trees. The stands 

were not opened up enough to favor regeneration of an intolerant species like ponderosa pine, but tolerant white fir has regenerated well over the past 70 years. This 

was the first phase of species shift to white fir dominance.

The area around Tennant was transferred to the Klamath National Forest after 

Long-Bell abandoned operations there in1957. 

These lands are now a part of the Goosenest 

Ranger District. Throughout the latter half of the 

20th century, the area was subjected to fire suppression and, in some areas, removal of dead and 

dying trees. 

By the end of the 20th century, species 

composition of many stands in the area around 

Tennant had been modified. Stands in this area 

that formerly featured many large, old ponderosa 

pine trees (fig. 2), growing in open conditions 

with relatively few white fir had become dense 

second-growth stands with few large ponderosa 

pine trees (fig. 3 a, b, c).

Goosenest Adaptive 

Management Area

The Northwest Forest Plan was developed in 

response to concerns for the continued viability of the northern spotted owl (USDA and 

USDI 1994a). One component of this plan was 

the establishment of a network of 10 Adaptive 

Management Areas throughout the region. The 

purpose of the AMA network is to provide opportunities to explore different strategies for managing forests. The Adaptive Management Areas 

range from 92,000 acres (37,000 ha) on the Little 

River AMA in southern Oregon to 488,000 acres 

Figure 2—Before initial harvest of these areas (around 1920), many 

stands probably featured open, park-like conditions with large, wellspaced ponderosa pine trees and occasional firs.


GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Figure 3—Stand conditions immediately prior to treatment (1997) on 

three of the units to be treated: (a) 

Unit 6, grid point 97x29 (b) Unit 13, 

grid point 24x64 and (c) Unit 9, grid 

point 00x38.

(b)

(a)

(c)


Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

(197,000 ha) on the Hayfork AMA in northern California. The Goosenest Adaptive 

Management Area is 172,000 acres (70,000 ha). The intended focus for the Goosenest AMA, as stated in the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision, is “Development of ecosystem management approaches, including use of prescribed burning 

and other silvicultural techniques for management of pine forests, including objectives related to forest health, production and maintenance of late-successional 

forest and riparian habitat and commercial timber production” (USDA and USDI 

1994b, page D-14). 

Most of the Goosenest AMA is characterized by gently sloping terrain and, 

within the boundaries of our study, no surface water. The absence of riparian areas 

makes the establishment of this study much more feasible than it would be if the 

team had to address limitations presented by steeply dissected terrain and water 

quality concerns. Soils consistently exhibit a pumice layer no more than several 

inches deep, over developed soil. 

The designation of the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in the Northwest 

Forest Plan created an opportunity for large-scale ecological research on the impact 

of forest management activities. The administrative designation of this land base 

for adaptive management activities created a place for researchers to operate. The 

Northwest Forest Plan has provided a stable source of research dollars for efforts 

within the geographic scope of the plan. Finally, the enthusiastic cooperation of the 

Klamath National Forest enabled a research team, led by individuals at the Pacific 

Southwest Research Station’s Redding Silviculture Laboratory, to create a project to 

address the stated goals of the Record of Decision (Ritchie and Harcksen 1999). A 

proposal was submitted by the team requesting Northwest Forest Plan funding for 

the project in 1995. The proposal was funded that year and has been funded each 

year since. 

Interdisciplinary Team

In 1991, a group of scientists came together to design a large-scale research project at Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest in northeastern California (Oliver 

2000). The result was a 3000-acre (1200 ha) ecological research project designed to 

investigate the effects of stand structure, prescribed fire, and grazing on an array 

of forest components. The project was unusual in that the design was not guided 

by a single discipline, but rather by the work of an interdisciplinary team. The 

team included researchers from the Pacific Southwest (PSW) Research Stations in 


GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Redding, Fresno, Davis, and the headquarters office in Albany. The disciplines represented in this project included silviculture, entomology, wildlife biology, statistics, and range science.

A subset of this group forms an executive team that oversees the research 

operations at the Goosenest AMA. Currently, the executive team members are Bill 

Oliver, Carl Skinner, Steve Zack (Wildlife Conservation Society), and William 

Table 1—Current and past participants in the Goosenest AMA Ecological 

Research Project.

Participant Role

Phil Aune Program Manager (retired 2000)

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redding

Walt Bavarskas Forester (retired 1999)

USDA Forest Service, Klamath N.F.

Bob Carlson Sale Administrator

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redding

Chris Fettig Research Entomologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Davis

T. Luke George Research Wildlife Ecologist

Humboldt State University

Nancy Gillette Research Entomologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany

Kathleen Harcksen Project Coordinator (resigned 2000)

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redding

William Laudenslayer Research Wildlife Ecologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Fresno

Sylvia Mori Statistician

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany

William Oliver Research Silviculturist (retired 2003)

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redding

John Perkins Forester (retired 2001)

USDA Forest Service, Klamath N.F.

William Reynolds Forester

USDA Forest Service, Klamath N.F.

Martin Ritchie Biometrician

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redding

Pat Shea Research Entomologist (retired 2001)

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Davis

Carl Skinner Research Geographer

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redding

Nick Vaughn Database Manager

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redding

C. Phillip Weatherspoon Research Silviculturist (retired 2003)

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redding

Steve Zack Research Wildlife Ecologist

Wildlife Conservation Society
Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Reynolds (Klamath National Forest). A Memorandum of Understanding is in effect 

for the research project; it is updated every five years (appendix J).

When the Northwest Forest Plan was enacted in 1994, the Blacks Mountain research team was presented with another opportunity for establishing a cause-andeffect based research project on the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area. From 

1995 to 1997, key members of the research team worked with staff of the Goosenest Ranger District (Klamath National Forest) to design and implement a project 

to determine the extent to which different combinations of silvicultural treatments 

(especially tree harvesting and prescribed fire) can accelerate the development of 

late-successional forest attributes in mixed stands of ponderosa pine and white fir 

in the Goosenest AMA. This project is consistent with the intent of the AMA as 

stated by the Record of Decision.

The interdisciplinary team was drawn from the participants in the Blacks 

Mountain Ecological Research Project (Oliver 2000; Oliver and Powers 1998). The 

initial effort was coordinated by Kathleen Harcksen, who served as the facilitator and liaison with the Klamath National Forest. Table 1 lists the current (2003) 

and past participants in this research project. Bob Carlson and Kathleen Harcksen 

oversaw treatment implementation from 1997 through 2000. 

The interdisciplinary team first attempted to address the question: what are the 

characteristics of late-successional forests in this system? The team selected three 

key components of late-successional forests in the interior-pine type to form the 

basis for the experiment. The first and most obvious feature is the presence of large 

trees. Ponderosa pine is a long-lived species which can be quite large. Trees with a 

diameter at breast height (DBH) in the 30- to 40- inch range were probably fairly 

common and can still be found in the area, although they are rare. At the time we 

began planning the experiment (1995), very few trees in excess of 24 inches DBH 

were found in the experimental area (appendix C).

The second key aspect of late-successional forests in this region is the dominance of ponderosa pine. Several factors indicate an abundance of ponderosa pine 

prior to the first harvests in the 1920’s. First, Long-Bell Lumber Company chose 

to base operations here, which indicates a good supply of large-diameter pine. 

Second, the photographic record often shows open park-like stands with large 

ponderosa pine trees (fig. 4). However, these photo locations are not random in 

any sense and may represent more open conditions because these are more easily 

photographed, not because they represent typical conditions. Third, the continued 

presence of some large ponderosa pine stumps in this region indicates the presence 

of large pine trees. 
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

The third component, or process, common to these forests during pre-settlement times is the frequent occurrence of fire. Preliminary evidence suggests that 

forests in the Goosenest AMA historically were subject to frequent fires. Agee 

(1994) reports fire return intervals on the order of 7 to 20 years on ponderosa pine 

sites at Pringle Butte in central Oregon, an area with similar species, soils and 

climate. We expect to find that fires in the Goosenest area were frequent during 

pre-settlement times. The presence (or absence) of these fires undoubtedly has a 

significant influence on many forest attributes, including the proportional representation of white fir, the amount and character of fuel (both coarse woody debris and 

the finer fuels), understory density and composition, and patterns of regeneration. 

These processes could all have served to indirectly affect wildlife species composition by influencing such factors as nest habitat and protective cover for prey.

The initial discussions of experimental design focused on mechanical treatments to restore pine dominance and restoring fire as an active component of these 

systems. The team recognized that thinning would also 

redistribute growth to fewer stems, thus accelerating 

growth on remaining trees. 

Some of the design elements of the Goosenest 

study are the result of hours of debate between the scientists from a variety of disciplines. The team struggled with the experimental design for some time. In the 

initial plan there were only 2 active treatments and a 

control, each replicated 6 times for 18 total treatment 

units. The research team wanted to maximize replicates 

given the constraints presented by such large units. A 

third active treatment was added requiring a change in 

number of replications from six to five.

The team also chose to spatially reference all data 

collection in the experiment. For this purpose, and to 

remain consistent with the procedures at BMEF, a 100-

meter grid of spatially referenced permanent points was 

established in each treatment unit. These points were 

located using the High Precision Geodetic Network (a 

survey-grade global positioning system) and have an 

error of less than 6 inches (15 centimeters) from the 

Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates. 

Points are monumented by an 18-inch rebar with a brass Figure 4—Pre-harvest conditions of the area during Longbell 

operations.
11

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

cap stamped with the unit number and the last two digits of the UTM coordinate 

(fig. 5). All observations and other activities are referenced to this grid. Treatment 

units with grid point locations are shown in appendix A.

The data collected and referenced to these grid points are entered into a corporate database maintained at the Redding Silviculture Laboratory. A database 

manager receives field data annually and insures that there is adequate meta-data. 

A requirement of all individuals funded to conduct research at the Goosenest AMA 

is that they provide both the data and meta-data in a timely manner. 

Methods

The research team attempted to maximize the power associated with any statistical 

tests in this experiment by limiting the number of treatments under consideration. 

The large size of the treatment units resulted in a rather limited amount of experiFigure 5—Grid point marker displaying the treatment unit number (4) 

and the UTM coordinates (25 24) in the Goosenest AMA.
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

mental material (area) to work with. Location of areas with sufficient uniformity, 

both within and between treatment units, was difficult and required a substantial reconnaissance effort by Walt Bavarskas and Kathleen Harcksen. Among the 20 units 

that were identified and chosen, several have undergone some harvesting (primarily 

removal of dead and dying trees) in addition to the first entry during the mid 1920s. 

Pre-treatment stand descriptions are provided in appendix B.

As with the project at Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest, the size of the 

treatment units was a key issue in this study. The team chose a large experimental 

unit of 100 acres (40.5 hectares) for each treatment unit. This was done because 

wildlife concerns were an important consideration in designing the study, and some 

passerine birds have large home-ranges. We wanted to make treatment-unit size 

sufficiently large to include the home-range of the species we expected to study. 

The 100-acre treatment unit size was a compromise. It was judged the minimum 

size to work with for some key species of interest; larger units presented problems with finding sufficient area with relatively similar conditions to complete the 

experiment. Each unit also has a buffer; the target width is 100 meters but varies 

depending on spatial constraints. 

Two units originally selected and surveyed were later eliminated (these are now 

referred to as units 100 and 200 in the pre-treatment data). Species composition was 

very heavy to fir, and the stumps in this area provide evidence that these two areas 

historically had a higher proportion of fir than the selected sites. These two units 

also were more open as a result of previous management. Both units have a permanent grid established and are the same size as those chosen for the experiment, but 

currently there is no research activity in these two units. 

Treatments 1 and 2 are both termed Pine-Emphasis Treatments. The primary 

feature of these treatments is the reestablishment of the dominance of ponderosa 

pine, defined as a stand with at least 80 percent basal area in ponderosa pine. Units 

selected for these two treatments were thinned from the lower diameter classes with 

a leave-tree constraint that dictated all dominant and codominant pine trees with 

DBH>12 inches must be left standing. In addition, approximately 15 percent of each 

treatment unit was regenerated in small group openings that ranged from 0.5 to 3 

acres each. After harvest, the openings were ripped and then planted to a density of 

350 trees per acre using ponderosa pine 2-0 planting stock (see appendix H). The 

subsoil treatment was conducted to incorporate the developed soil into the upper 

portion (pumice layer) of the soil profile. It is hoped that this will provide a more 

favorable environment for the establishment of ponderosa pine seedlings. 

The only difference between the first two treatments is in the introduction of 
13

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

prescribed fire (Pine Emphasis with Fire) in five of the units. All burns are to take 

place in the fall of the year. The initial prescribed fires were conducted in all five 

units after completion of the first round of harvests, in October of 2001 (see appendix G). 

The third treatment is simply a mechanical treatment (thinning from below) to 

accelerate growth on the largest trees in the stand; thus its name, the Large Tree 

Treatment. The justification for this treatment is that it provides a contrast with 

units where pine is not favored, to evaluate the impact of change in overstory species composition. Pine-Emphasis Without Fire and the Large Tree Treatments are 

likely to show only subtle differences early in the life of the experiment. Effects 

may become more evident through time as the impacts of the openings, clumpiness, and difference in tree species composition become more pronounced.

The fourth and final treatment in the suite is a control. In the Control Treatment, passive management is the aim. Fire suppression continues in these treatment units, but no prescribed burning or thinning is allowed. These four treatments 

are described in greater detail in appendix D. 

Experimental Design

The four treatments are applied in a completely randomized design with five 

replications. Each treatment unit is 100 acres (40.5 hectares) plus a buffer strip. 

The buffer size varies somewhat but has a target width of 100 meters. Some of the 

treatment units were too close to allow for the full 100-meter buffer. Treatment unit 

boundaries were surveyed, and boundary trees were painted with a yellow blaze. 

The 20 treatment units were first identified, then treatments were assigned to those 

20 units by random draw. Appendix fig. A1 shows the arrangement of treatment 

units in the adaptive management area and their assigned treatments.

Treatment Implementation

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) dictated a thorough analysis of the 

impacts of the project. Work on the NEPA process and a draft of the timber sale 

contract were conducted in 1995 and 1996. The sale was offered in 1998, and Columbia Forest Products was awarded the contract. The scale of this project presented 

some problems in implementation (Glaesman 2000); it was not possible to complete 

operations in one season. Timber harvesting started in Unit 14 on July 27, 1998, and 

was completed in Unit 8 on October 19, 2000 (appendix E). In each season of mechanical treatment, complete sets of replicates were finished. The felling of smaller 

trees (those with DBH<4 inches) took some additional time and was not completed 
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

until October 2001 (appendix F).

Whole trees were skidded to a landing, then trucked to one of two nearby staging areas (fig. 6). At the staging areas, trees were de-limbed, bucked, and products 

were sorted for shipment depending on species and size of the material (fig. 7). Clean 

material was chipped at the staging areas and shipped for pulp, and the remaining 

Figure 6—Trees being loaded for transport to the staging area in the Goosenest Adaptive ManageFigure 7—Limbs were removed then, trees were sorted at one of two nearby staging areas.
15

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

biomass was shipped for electricity generation to Wheelabrator Co. in Anderson, 

California. Fir sawlogs were shipped to Columbia Forest Products in Klamath Falls, 

Oregon, and pine sawlogs were transported to Prineville, Oregon, for processing.

The original plan called for the burning to be completed over a period of 

three seasons with Unit 6 being burned first in 1999. However, 2 successive years 

without an adequate fall burning window resulted in the delay of burning until 

2001 (fig. 8). In October 2001, all five of the Treatment 2 units were successfully 

burned (appendix G). All five of the units were bounded by roads or fire lines, and 

the Ranger District also installed some intermediate control lines through the units 

prior to the ignition. 

Treated stands are now much more open (fig. 9), and this is quite noticeable 

when compared with control units. Quadratic mean diameter (QMD) is still low 

in comparison to expected QMD for stands that might be considered exhibiting 

“late-seral” characteristics. Treatments moved stands in the direction of late-seral 

conditions by increasing the average tree size, accelerating growth, and, in the case 

of Pine-Emphasis Treatments, modifying species composition. Four of the treatment units (6, 7, 9, and 20) stand out as having more large (DBH≥24 inches) trees 

per acre than the rest (fig. 10). Several units (3, 6, and 9) have achieved or are very 

near the target species proportion of at least 80 percent pine. Figure 11 shows the 

species composition for each of the 20 units. Units lying on the reference line are a 

mix of ponderosa pine and either white fir or red fir. Units not lying on the diagoFigure 8—Prescribed burning took place in October 2001.
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Figure 9—(a) Unit 6, grid point 

97x29, post-treatment photo taken 

2002; (b) Unit 13, grid point 24x64, 

post-treatment photo taken 2002; 

(c) Unit 9, grid point 00x38, posttreatment photo taken 2002.

(a)

(c)

(b)
17

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Figure 11—Percentage of 

ponderosa pine basal area related to percentage of true fir 

basal area, based on a sample 

excluding planted openings.

Figure 10—Post-Treatment 

percentage of fir basal area 

related to number of trees 

per acre >24 inches DBH, 

based on a sample not including planted openings. 
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

nal reference contain some other species; most notable is unit 12, with a significant 

component of pole-size sugar pine trees. 

The impacts of treatments on stand density are an important consideration. Not 

surprisingly, thinned stands show a much reduced stand density when referenced to 

Stand Density Index (SDI; Reineke 1933), an index derived as a function of quadratic mean diameter and number of trees per unit area. The plot of number of trees 

per acre and quadratic mean diameter is shown in fig. 12.

Another way to consider the species distribution target in Pine-Emphasis treatFigure 12—Size-density 

relationship of treatment 

units and maximum Stand 

Density Index (with 400 as 

a reference).

Figure 13—Thinning impact 

on percentage of fir by basal 

area for the Goosenest AMA 

treatment units.
19

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

ments is to consider the proportion of white fir. In most of the units, the percent of 

fir basal area was reduced as a result of treatments (fig. 13). This is true even for 

the Large Tree Treatment, primarily because this is a thinning from below and the 

understory is dominated by fir trees.

Fire and Fire Surrogates

The Fire and Fire Surrogates (FFS) study is a national network of sites designed 

to investigate the influence of fire and fire surrogates on forest structures, wildlife, and stand dynamics. The design of FFS study sites is a 2x2 factorial including burned/unburned and thinned/un-thinned treatments. Because the Goosenest 

project does not include a burn-only treatment, it is not consistent with the FFS 

study. However, after the Goosenest project was established, three FFS burn-only 

units were identified and established. The Fire and Fire Surrogates burn-only treatments were implemented the last week of October 2002. Three replicates from the 

Goosenest project are now included as an FFS installation. Nine of the 20 treatment units have been surveyed as part of the FFS study: Units 5, 9, and 12 (Pine 

Emphasis); Units 6, 13, and 15 (Pine Emphasis With Fire); and Units 4, 10, and 18 

(Control). In selected areas of these units, FFS plots may be found on a 50-meter 

grid. These plots are monumented with brass capped rebar and an adjacent green 

and yellow stake, whereas the grid points for the Ecological Research Project have 

orange stakes and orange flagging.

Some of the FFS sampling methods are different from those used on the 

Goosenest project, requiring additional sampling using the FFS protocol. These 

FFS data are not a part of the corporate database. Carl Skinner is the coordinator 

for the FFS Goosenest site and is responsible for all data collected as a part of this 

separate research effort.

Activities

Wildlife Ecology

Collection of data on small mammals and birds was initiated in 1996. This work 

has continued annually with eight crew members. Four people conduct point 

counts of birds, and four others trap small mammals. Crews are in the area for approximately 12 weeks each field season. 

Point count stations are set up throughout the study area for the estimation 

of density and diversity of breeding bird species (fig. 14). Species encountered 

through the 2002 field season are listed in appendix I. Nine point-count locations 
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

have been established at grid points on each unit. Point count surveys are initiated 

within 15 minutes of sunrise and continue until all points in a unit are completed. 

The duration is 8 minutes per point. Each survey station is a minimum of 200 m 

from the next closest station and no less than 100 m from the edge of the treatment unit. The horizontal distance to each bird is classed as being within 50 m, or 

between 50 and 100 m, or greater than 100m from the point. Following the protocol 

in Martin and Guepel (1993), nests are monitored every 3-4 days until the nestlings 

fledge or the nest fails.

During the same period, small mammal populations are sampled using a grid 

of live traps (fig. 15). The traps are placed on an 8x8 sampling grid at 50 m spacing 

with two traps per station, one tomahawk and one Sherman trap. Captured chipmunks are marked with passive integrative transponder tags. Deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) are given temporary marks by clipping their fur. Sex, age, location, reproductive condition and weight are recorded for other species, but they are 

unmarked. Since 2001, surveys have been conducted for mammals in all 20 units 

each year.

To date, no studies of herpetofauna have been initiated at the Goosenest AMA. 

The reptiles and amphibians cited in appendix I are derived from anecdotal sightings made during other survey work in the area.

Figure 14—Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta Canadensis)
21

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Graduate students have used the sites as well. Dusky flycatcher (Empidonax 

oberholseri) nest predation was described (Liebezeit 2001; Liebezeit and George 

2002). Current study topics include seed caching of chipmunks, and the abundance and reproductive success of dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis) in prescribed burn units.

Vegetation Sampling

This experiment is not intended to feature a comparison with pre-treatment conditions. Pre-treatment vegetation samples were conducted only to evaluate structural 

homogeneity among treatment units. We used a 20 Basal Area Factor (ft2 per acre) 

variable-radius plot on a 50- by 100-meter grid to sample trees by 4-inch diameter classes (Ritchie 1997) for all trees >4 inches DBH (Table 2). This allowed for 

the comparison of species composition and stand density among units. We were 

primarily interested in quickly determining whether we had sufficient uniformity 

in conditions among the selected units to proceed with the experiment. As a result 

of this effort, two units were eliminated, and we subsequently found two units to 

replace them. We did not sample understory vegetation or any trees <4 inches DBH 

in the pre-treatment measurements. From these data, maps of high-density fir components in the Pine-Emphasis units provided locations for planted openings.

Post-treatment vegetation sampling began in the summer prior to the scheduled 

burning in the Pine-Emphasis-with-Fire units. In this initial pre-burn sample, we 

tagged all trees >3.5 inches DBH on selected plots, set the duff pins, and sampled 

Figure 15—Shadow chipmunk (Tamius senex).
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

coarse woody debris on a 328-foot (100 m) transect. Trees were tagged in advance 

of burning to obtain information on fire-induced mortality. The first complete 

post-treatment vegetation measurements were taken in summer 2002 on all but the 

herbaceous vegetation. The collection of frequency data for herbaceous vegetation 

was postponed until 2003 to better reflect the response to harvesting and burning of 

these species. 

The vegetation sampling methods include a number of different types of data 

and are similar to the methods used at Blacks Mountain (Oliver 2000). Trees are 

sampled on a fixed-area plot. The plot size for trees and snags >11.5 inches DBH is 

0.2 acre (52.7-foot radius). Nested within this is a 0.05-acre plot (26.3-foot radius) 

for living and dead pole-size trees (3.6 inches to 11.5 inches DBH). Seedlings and 

saplings are sampled on a nested 0.01 acre plot (11.8-foot radius). The sampling intensity for this is every other grid point, or one plot for every 4.9 acres (2 hectares), 

approximately 20 plots per unit.

In addition, a 328-foot (100 m) transect centered on the grid point is established. This allows for the placement of duff pins (for measuring duff consumption 

in burned units), line-intercept sampling of woody vegetation (fig. 16), and line-inTable 2—Number of plots in pre- and post- treatment vegetation samples 

at the Goosenest AMA.

Treatment Number of Number of 

Unit Treatment pre-treatment post-treatment

 samples samples

1 Large Tree 71 18

2 Large Tree 72 18

3 Pine + Fire 73 17

4 Control 72 18

5 Pine Emphasis 69 18

6 Pine + Fire 67 17

7 Pine Emphasis 72 18

8 Large Tree 72 18

9 Pine Emphasis 72 18

10 Control 72 18

11 Large Tree 72 17

12 Pine Emphasis 72 19

13 Pine + Fire 71 17

14 Large Tree 70 18

15 Pine + Fire 72 17

16 Control 73 18

17 Pine + Fire 67 17

18 Control 66 17

19 Pine Emphasis 70 17

20 Control 76 19
23

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

tercept sampling of coarse woody debris using methods described by Brown (1974).

Frequency of understory species was also observed on 0.5-m2 circular plots 

placed at 6 locations along the 100-m transect. Cover of understory vegetation by 

species, or species groups, has also been estimated for this same small circular plot. 

The first post-treatment survey of frequency and cover was conducted in 2003. The 

species list is in appendix I.

Entomology

A census of bark-beetle-induced tree mortality was conducted within treatment 

units the year prior to mechanical treatments (Table 3). Parallel transects were run 

at 328-foot (100-m) intervals through the unit. Trees killed by bark beetles were initially located on the basis of needle discoloration. Trees showing evidence of beetle 

activity were identified by species and spatially referenced. In addition, the causal 

agent (Dendroctonus, Ips, or Scolytus) and year of death were recorded. In 2003, the 

initial post-treatment census was conducted. These data have been entered into the 

Goosenest database. 

 From 1997 through 1999 a study was conducted to investigate the diversity and 

community structure of macroarthropods found in the coarse woody debris at the 

Goosenest AMA (Koenigs and others 2002). The study contrasted insects captured by three different methods. The first component of the study was a sample of 

Figure 16—Field crews sampled coarse woody debris and shrubs with a 100-meter line-intercept 

sample
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

insects emerging from down logs. These insects were sampled with 54 emergence 

traps on 18 logs (9 ponderosa pine and 9 white fir). In the subsequent years the 

sample was expanded to include 108 traps on 54 logs.

The second component was a sample of insects emerging from stumps. Traps were 

set up on 18 stumps in 1997, and this sample was expanded to 54 stumps in 1998.

 The third component involved sampling insects from the surrounding environment with the use of pane traps. Acrylic panes (80 cm x 60 cm) were placed against 

down logs. Insects that fell into a tray at the base of the pane were sampled on 54 logs 

in 1997 and on 18 logs in 1998 and 1999. The time required to obtain these samples 

necessitated a reduction of sample size in the second and third years of the study.

Fire History

Large stumps may contain a long record of the fires that have burned in a particular area. Past fires will often leave a scar that is evident in the growth rings of each 

damaged tree. Sampling of stumps to obtain information from fire scars began in 

1998 and continued to 2000 (data on file at the Redding Laboratory). The process 

Table 3—Dates of census for bark beetle-induced mortality conducted at the Goosenest 

AMA with dates of treatment completion.

Plot Treatment Pre-Treat. Treatment Burn DatePost-Treat 

no. Census Date Date Date Census Date

1 Large Tree 5/18/1999 6/1999 -- 7/02/2003

2 Large Tree 7/15/1999 11/2000 -- 7/18/2003

3 Pine + Fire 5/1/2000 5/2000 10/12/2001 6/25/2003

4 Control 5/20/1999 -- -- 7/22/2003

5 Pine Emphasis 7/1/1999 9/1999 -- 7/17/2003

6 Pine + Fire 7/22/1998 12/1998 10/8/2001 7/17/2003

7 Pine Emphasis 5/23/2000 8/2000 -- 7/03/2003

8 Large Tree 6/15/2000 10/2000 -- 7/29/2003

9 Pine Emphasis 7/23/1998 11/1998 -- 7/24/2003

10 Control 7/18/2000 -- -- 7/15/2003

11 Large Tree 4/11/2000 5/2000 -- 6/25/2003

12 Pine Emphasis 5/19/1999 7/1999 -- 6/26/2003

13 Pine + Fire 7/14/1999 10/1999 10/11/2001 7/08/2003

14 Large Tree 7/21/1998 8/1998 -- 6/27/2003

15 Pine + Fire 6/10/1999 8/1999 10/11/2001 7/01/2003

16 Control 8/26/2000 -- -- 8/01/2003

17 Pine + Fire 6/5/2000 7/2000 10/12/2001 6/24/2003

18 Control 8/22/2000 -- -- 7/232003

19 Pine Emphasis 6/20/2000 10/2000 -- 7/02/2003

20 Control 7/21/1999 -- -- 7/29/2003
25

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

involves removing a cross-section from the stump and returning it to the laboratory 

for dating of fire scars (fig. 17). Approximately 75 stumps were sampled from the 

units scheduled for prescribed fire; we wanted to obtain the fire record before burning 

consumed these stumps. Stumps in the unburned units have not been sampled.

Results

Although it is still very early in the study, it is clear that the treatments have significantly modified these stands. Mechanical treatments alone have moved the stands 

well along the trajectory toward some aspects of “late-successional” characteristics. 

Some of the units are now at or near 80 percent composition ponderosa pine, one of 

the key elements of the pine emphasis prescription. Obviously, obtaining tree sizes 

consistent with pre-settlement conditions will take some time; trees are relatively 

small at present, and these are not highly productive sites for tree growth. The prescribed burns generally appear more uniform than the burns conducted at Blacks 

Mountain Experimental Forest (Oliver 2000).

Based on conditions of post-treatment tree crowns (many trees show a fuller 

crown, carrying more foliage), we anticipate that the remaining ponderosa pine will 

show a positive growth response to harvest treatment. However, the fir response, if 

any, may be more muted.

Figure 17—Fire history records were obtained from fire scars in stumps prior to prescribed burning 

at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area.
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

How to Get Involved

The team continues to seek involvement from other disciplines, and the research 

is currently supporting several graduate students. Those interested in participating 

should contact: Goosenest Interdisciplinary Team Coordinator, Silviculture Laboratory, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002. Written proposals are circulated among team members in 

advance of a presentation at the next team meeting.

The team meets twice yearly, once in the late fall to draft and agree to an initial 

budget and then again in early spring to finalize budgets. Meetings are held in Davis or Redding, California.

References

Agee, James K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of 

the eastern Cascades. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-320. Portland, OR: Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 52 p.

Brown, James K. 1974. Handbook for inventorying downed woody material.

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-16. Fort Collins, CO: Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 24 p.

Glaesman, K. 2000. Little Horse Peak research project. Timber West, 25(3):18-22.

Koenigs, Ethan; Shea, Patrick J.; Borys, Robert: Haverty, Michael I. 2002. An 

investigation of the insect fauna associated with the coarse woody debris 

of Pinus ponderosa and Abies concolor in northeastern California. In: 

Laudenslayer, William F.; Shea, Patrick J.; Valentine, Bradley E; Weatherspoon, 

C. Phillip; Lisle, Thomas E. tech coords. Proceedings of the symposium on the 

ecology and management of dead wood in western forests; 1999 Nov. 2-4; Reno, 

NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 97-110.

Liebezeit, Joseph R. 2001. Nest predators and nesting success of the dusky 

flycatcher in a managed ponderosa pine forest. Arcata CA: Humboldt State 

University; 68 p. M.S. Thesis.

Liebezeit, Joseph R.; George, T. Luke. 2002. Nest predators, nest site selection and 

nesting success of the Dusky Flycatcher in a managed ponderosa pine forest.

Condor 104: 507-517.

Martin, T.E; Geupel, G.E. 1993. Nest-monitoring plots: methods for locating nests 

and monitoring success. Journal of Field Ornithology. 64(4): 507-519.
27

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

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

Forest in northeastern California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-179. Albany, 

CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture; 66 p.

Oliver, William W.; Powers, Robert F. 1998. Blacks Mountain, California: 

Interdisciplinary field research in ponderosa pine. Journal of Forestry 96(8): 4-9.

Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand density index for even-aged stands. Journal 

of Agricultural Research 46: 627-638.

Ritchie, Martin W. 1997. Minimizing the rounding error from point sample 

estimates of tree frequencies. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 12(4): 108-114.

Ritchie, MartinW.; Harcksen, Kathleen A. 1999. Long-term interdisciplinary 

research on the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area, Klamath National 

Forest, California. Forestry Chronicle 75(3): 453-456.

Shoup, Laurence H. 1981. Speed, power, and profit: Railroad logging in the 

Goosenest District, Klamath National Forest, 1900-1956. Report on file with 

PSW Research Station, Redding CA. 202 p.

USDA and USDI. 1994a. Final supplemental environmental impact statement 

on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related 

species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Volume 1. Washington 

DC: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Department of Interior; 511 p.

USDA and USDI. 1994b. Standards and guidelines for management of habitat 

for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of 

the northern spotted owl. Washington DC: Forest Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, and Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Interior; 228 p. 

29

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Appendix A. Goosenest Adaptive Management Area 

Treatment Unit Locations and Treatment Unit Maps

Figure A.1 -- Map showing the location of the 20 treatment units.
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Figure A.2— Treatment Unit 1 with grid point locations.
31

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Figure A.3—Treatment Unit 2 with grid point locations.
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Figure A.4—Treatment Unit 3 with grid point locations.
33

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Figure A.5—Treatment Unit 4 with grid point locations.
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Figure A.6— Treatment Unit 5 with grid point locations.
35

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Figure A.7—Treatment Unit 6 with grid point locations.
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Figure A.8—Treatment Unit 7 with grid point locations.
37

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Figure A.9—Treatment Unit 8 with grid point locations.
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Figure A.10—Treatment Unit 9 with grid point locations.
39

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Figure A.11—Treatment Unit 10 with grid point locations.
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Figure A.12—Treatment Unit 11 with grid point locations.
41

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Figure A.13—Treatment Unit 12 with grid point locations.
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Figure A.14—Treatment Unit 13 with grid point locations.
43

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Figure A.15—Treatment Unit 14 with grid point locations.
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Figure A.16— Treatment Unit 15 with grid point locations.
45

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Figure A.17—Treatment Unit 16 with grid point locations.
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Figure A.18—Treatment Unit 17 with grid point locations.
47

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Figure A.19—Treatment Unit 18 with grid point locations.
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Figure A.20—Treatment Unit 19 with grid point locations.
49

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Figure A.21—Treatment Unit 20 with grid point locations

51

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Appendix B. Treatment Unit Descriptions

Pre-treatment stand conditions were sampled in November 1995 using a rectangular, 164- by 328-foot, (50- by 100-m.) grid of 20 Basal Area Factor (ft2 per acre) 

variable radius plots for all trees greater than 4 inches DBH. Trees were tallied by 

4-inch diameter classes for five species groups (ponderosa pine, true fir, sugar pine, 

incense-cedar and other conifers). This sample was obtained to assist in selecting 

treatment units that were as alike as possible in terms of species distribution and 

stand development. The plots were taken at the grid points and at 50-meter intervals 

in one direction to double the sampling intensity.

As a result of this effort, two units were removed from the experiment, the 

original units 1 and 2. Subsequently two additional treatment units were identified 

and then sampled in late 1996 using the same scheme.

There is some expected variation between the units in this study. Pre-treatment 

basal area varies from 116 to 254 ft2 per acre, with a median value of 161 ft2 per 

acre (fig. B.1). Several of the stands with lower values for trees per acre had been 

subject to sanitation/salvage harvesting within the previous 10 years. 

White fir at the time of establishment of this experiment was a significant component in all the stands (fig B.2). Other conifers found infrequently were primarily 

sugar pine and incense-cedar, with an occasional lodgepole pine or Douglas-fir. 

There is some red fir on the higher elevation units, and these have been included 

in the figures for true fir. The only units with a significant component in incensecedar are 11, 12, and 14 (all with between 10 and 20 ft2 of basal area). Units 3, 7, 

10, and 15 had trace amounts of incense-cedar (<10 ft2 per acre); the remaining 13 

units had none recorded in the sample. Ten units had some sugar pine (7, 8, and 10 

through 17); however, none of these had more than 10 ft2 per acre. Minor species 

such as lodgepole pine or Douglas-fir occurred on all but 7 of the units (1, 2, 6, 11, 

15, 17, and 19 all had zero recorded occurrences of these species).

Initially, all of the stands had more than 20 percent basal area in fir and all but 

six were above 40 percent basal area in fir (fig. B.3). This is a critical threshold 

because the goal for distribution of pine by basal area is 80 percent (therefore, no 

more than 20 percent in fir and other species). 

The quadratic mean diameter ranged from 9.7 to 16.2 inches, with a median 

value of 11.4 inches. Confidence intervals with a half-width of 2 standard errors 

are shown in fig. B.4. Because trees <4 inches in diameter were not sampled, QMD 

values are biased on the high side somewhat.

Stand Density Index (SDI) (Reineke 1933) is a useful metric for mature evenaged stands (fig. B.5). The value is indexed to number of trees per acre at an index 

of 10 inches, quadratic mean diameter. Plot 1 for example has 144 trees per acre at 
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

a quadratic mean diameter of 12.6. With SDI, this density is equivalent to a stand 

with a diameter of 10 inches and 207 trees per acre. Although the application of SDI 

in mixed-species stands causes some problems, it can still be useful to observe the 

values obtained for the 20 units before treatments were applied. SDI values ranged 

from 192 to 439.

There were relatively few trees >24 inches DBH at the time of establishment 

(1995). Figure B.6 shows the scarcity of large trees. However, most of these units 

have at least 50 trees per acre in the small sawtimber size, indicating adequate 

material for recruitment into the larger size classes over time. Stand summaries for 

each of the 20 treatment units are shown in table B.1.

Table B.1—Pre-treatment density (stems/acre), quadratic mean diameter 

(QMD; inches) with estimated standard errors (SE), and stand density 

index (SDI; stems per acre) for 20 treatment units in the Goosenest 

Adaptive Management Area research project based on a variable-radius 

sample (20 basal area factor) of trees >4.0 inches breast-height diameter 

(data collected in 1995 and 1996).

Unit N Stems/Acre SE QMD (in.) SE SDI

1 71 144 22.8 12.6 0.47 208

2 72 346 33.2 9.7 0.30 329

3 73 234 28.9 11.2 0.35 280

4 72 168 15.1 11.3 0.32 204

5 70 317 27.9 10.4 0.30 339

6 69 186 23.9 12.6 0.42 271

7 67 136 14.0 12.5 0.40 195

8 72 366 23.4 11.2 0.25 439

9 72 355 26.7 11.4 0.25 439

10 72 216 23.1 12.3 0.39 301

11 72 105 7.8 15.6 0.39 214

12 72 160 17.4 12.4 0.38 226

13 71 290 29.4 10.9 0.35 331

14 70 109 8.0 14.4 0.39 195

15 72 88 6.2 16.2 0.47 192

16 73 231 22.4 11.2 0.31 277

17 67 260 28.1 10.4 0.32 276

18 66 314 28.8 9.9 0.30 309

19 70 277 23.7 11.4 0.34 342

20 76 318 25.0 12.1 0.25 432
53

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Figure B.1—The confidence interval (with a half-width of 2 standard errors) of the pre-treatment estimates of stand basal area per 

acre for each of the 20 treatment units on the Goosenest Adaptive 

Management Area research project.

Figure B.2—Pre-treatment distribution of basal area by species 

groups for the 20 treatment units in the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area research project.
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Figure B.3—Percent of pre-treatment basal area in red and white fir for 

each of the 20 treatment units before application of treatments in the 

Goosenest Adaptive Management Area.

Figure B.4—Confidence interval with a half-width of 2 standard errors 

for the estimate of pre-treatment quadratic mean diameter by treatment 

unit in the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area (date for 1995 and 

1996).
55

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Figure B.5—Confidence interval with a half-width of 2 standard errors for 

the estimate of pre-treatment Stand Density Index (Reineke 1933) by treatment unit in the Goosenest AMA (data for 1995 and 1996).

Figure B.6—Pre-treatment distribution of trees by size class (poles, small 

sawtimber and mature sawtimber) for each of the 20 treatment units in the 

Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in 1995/1996.
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192
57

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Unit 1 Pre-Treatment (199) Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Appendix C. Treatment Unit Diameter Distributions at 

Establishment

Prior to assigning treatments, a sample to determine of tree density and species 

composition was conducted. Crews employed a systematic sample of each unit with 

a 20 Basal Area Factor variable-radius plot. Trees were tallied by species and by 

4-inch- diameter classes starting with trees 4 inches DBH. The sampling intensity 

was about 70 plots per unit: a 50x100 meter grid. We used the established grid system and added one intermediate point between established grid points per line. 

The primary goal of this sample was to obtain a pre-treatment characterization of stand structure and to locate dense pockets of fir for locating the 15 acres of 

planned openings. We were trying to target those areas with sparse distribution of 

pine trees. Since the target was 80 percent pine basal area, mechanical treatments 

of areas with little or no pine will do nothing to move stands toward this target. A 

pine-emphasis thin in pure fir stands will not be effective. The planted openings 

were intended to remedy this problem.

Unit 1 (Large-Tree Emphasis) basal area estimate was 124 ft2 per acre with a 

quadratic mean diameter of 12.6 inches in October 1996. Unit 1 was subject to 

sanitation/salvage prior to treatment installation. Also, this unit is one of the lower 

elevation units and, because of this, has less fir than some of the other sites. Data 

are from a sample of 71 variable radius plots.
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

 Unit 2 (Large-Tree Emphasis) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 177 ft2 per 

acre with a quadratic mean diameter of 9.7 inches in October 1996. Data are from a 

sample of 72 variable radius plots.

Unit 2 Pre-Treatment (199) Diameter Distribution

0

40

80

120

160

200

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit  Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit  Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

 Unit 3 (Pine Emphasis With Fire) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 160 ft2

per acre with a quadratic mean diameter of 11.2 inches in November 1995. Data are 

from a sample of 73 variable radius plots.

 Unit 4 (Control) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 117 ft2 per acre with a 

quadratic mean diameter of 11.31 inches in November 1995. Unit 4 was subject to 

some light sanitation/salvage work in the past. Data are from a sample of 72 variable radius plots.
59

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

 Unit 5 (Pine Emphasis) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 188 ft2 per acre 

with a quadratic mean diameter of 10.4 inches in November 1995. Data are from a 

sample of 70 variable radius plots.

Unit 6 (Pine Emphasis With Fire) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 162 ft2

per acre with a quadratic mean diameter of 12.6 inches in November 1995. Data are 

from a sample of 69 variable radius plots.

Unit 5 Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

 Unit 7 (Pine Emphasis) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 116 ft2 per acre 

with a quadratic mean diameter of 12.5 inches in November 1995. Data are from a 

sample of 67 variable radius plots.

Unit  Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit  Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine
60

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

 Unit 8 (Large-Tree Emphasis) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 250 ft2 per 

acre with a quadratic mean diameter of 11.2 inches in November 1995. Data are 

from a sample of 72 variable radius plots.

 Unit 9 (Pine Emphasis) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 253 ft2 per acre 

with a quadratic mean diameter of 11.4 inches in November 1995. Data are from a 

sample of 72 variable radius plots.

 Unit 10 (Control) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 178 ft2 per acre with a 

quadratic mean diameter of 12.3 inches in November 1995. Data are from a sample 

of 72 variable radius plots.

Unit  Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit 9 Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit 10 Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine
61

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

 Unit 11 (Large-Tree Emphasis) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 139 ft2 per 

acre with a quadratic mean diameter of 15.6 inches in November 1995. Data are 

from a sample of 72 variable radius plots.

Unit 12 (Pine Emphasis) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 134 ft2 per acre 

with a quadratic mean diameter of 12.4 inches in November 1995. Data are from a 

sample of 72 variable radius plots.

Unit 13 (Pine Emphasis With Fire) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 187 ft2

per acre with a quadratic mean diameter of 10.9 inches in November 1995. Data are 

from a sample of 71 variable radius plots.

Unit 11 Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

40

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit 12 Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

40

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit 1 Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine
62

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Unit 14 (Large-Tree Emphasis) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 123 ft2 per 

acre with a quadratic mean diameter of 14.4 inches in November 1995. Data are 

from a sample of 70 variable radius plots.

Unit 15 (Pine Emphasis With Fire) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 127 ft2

per acre with a quadratic mean diameter of 16.2 inches in November 1995. Data are 

from a sample of 72 variable radius plots.

Unit 1 Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

5

10

15

20

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit 15 Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

5

10

15

20

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit 16 (Control) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 158 ft2 per acre with a 

quadratic mean diameter of 11.2 inches in November 1995. Data are from a sample 

of 73 variable radius plots.

Unit 1 Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine
63

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Unit 17 (Pine Emphasis With Fire) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 153 ft2

per acre with a quadratic mean diameter of 10.4 inches in November 1995. Unit 17 

was subject to sanitation/salvage prior to treatment installation. Data are from a 

sample of 67 variable radius plots.

Unit 18 (Control) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 168 ft2 per acre with a 

quadratic mean diameter of 9.9 inches in November 1995. Unit 18 was subject to 

sanitation/salvage prior to treatment installation. Data are from a sample of 66 variable radius plots.

Unit 19 (Pine Emphasis) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 196 ft2 per acre 

with a quadratic mean diameter of 11.4 inches in November 1995. Unit 19 was subject to sanitation/salvage prior to treatment installation. Data are from a sample of 

70 variable radius plots. 

Unit 1 Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit 1 Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit 19 Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine
64

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Unit 20 (Control) pre-treatment basal area estimate was 254 ft2 per acre with a 

quadratic mean diameter of 12.1 inches in November 1995. Unit 20 was subject to 

sanitation/salvage prior to treatment installation. Data are from a sample of 76 variable radius plots.

Unit 20 Pre-Treatment (1995) Diameter Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine
65

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Appendix D. Implementing Treatments

D.1 Treatment Specifications

Overview

There are four treatments in the experiment. The primary feature of the thinning in 

Treatments 1 and 2 is the retention of dominant and codominant pine trees (where 

present). The intent of this thinning is to facilitate a species conversion. By favoring 

the retention of pine, it is anticipated that these stands will, over time, have 80 percent basal area in pine, or more precisely, less than or equal to 20 percent basal area 

in fir and other species. The first two treatments both feature identical mechanical 

treatments; the only difference between Treatment 1 and Treatment 2 is the application of prescribed fire.

One other element of Treatments 1 and 2 is the creation of small openings for 

regeneration of pine. With the high proportion of pine in these stands, it is not possible to achieve the goal of 80 percent basal area in pine by simply thinning out the 

fir. In many stands there is insufficient existing ponderosa and sugar pine to meet 

the objective. 

The thinning treatments produced sawlogs and biomass. A total yield of 17.57 

million board feet of timber was processed as a result of this treatment. In addition, 

68,348 green tons of biomass were removed as well.

The primary feature of late-successional forests in this region is the presence 

of large trees. Accordingly, in Treatment 3, no consideration was given to species 

when thinning. The largest trees were selected for retention on a spacing guideline, 

producing a stand where growth is allocated among fewer large trees. These stands 

should then develop a large-tree component much more quickly than the control 

stands. These stands will continue to have a dominant component of white fir. 

The control treatments (Treatment 4) will experience neither thinning nor prescribed fire. Sanitation and salvage also will be prohibited. The stands will continue 

to be subject to fire suppression: the Forest Service will continue to extinguish 

wildfires within the study area with no modification other than the expectation that 

firefighting efforts attempt to avoid destructive manipulations within the treatment 

units themselves (for example, no dozer lines). It is hoped that activities such as fire 

line construction would be directed, when possible, to areas beyond the boundaries 

of the treatments.

It was not possible to complete all thinning operations in a single season. The 

thinning work was divided up over a 3-year period, from 1998 to 2000. In 1998, 

one complete replication was thinned (Units 6, 9, and 14). In 1999, two complete 
66

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

replications were thinned (Units 1, 2, 5, 12, 13, and 15). In 2000, the final two 

replications were thinned (Units 8, 11, 7, 19, 3, and 17). Because of this timing, we 

originally intended to follow a similar schedule for burning: Unit 6 in 1999, Units 

13 and 15 in 2000, and finally Units 3 and 17 in 2001. However, because of restrictions resulting from burn conditions, we did not complete any burning activities 

until 2001, when all five units were burned (see appendix G).

The treatments are described below in the marking guides. We had a 30-inch 

leave requirement. That is, any tree >30 inches DBH was left regardless of spacing. On the Large Tree Treatment, trees greater than 30 inches DBH were treated 

as invisible. This produced a more clumpy arrangement of trees in areas where the 

large trees were found.

Treatments 1 and 2: Pine Emphasis Mechanical Treatment

Objective

The objective is to accelerate development and enhance establishment of large pine 

trees by thinning and strive toward at least 80 percent composition of ponderosa 

pine by basal area (with minimal age class distribution differences between plots), 

while meeting mandatory tree retention criteria, spacing guidelines, desirable leave 

tree, regeneration, and slash criteria.

Evaluate for thinning every 10 years (2005, 2015, and so forth). Thin those 

plots that exceed Stand Density Index of 220 back to 205. Utilize the mandatory 

leave tree criteria, spacing guidelines and desirable leave tree criteria. (Note: To 

minimize within-treatment variability, some more open units will require little or 

no thinning in the first and/or second entries, while more dense units may require 

heavy removals in each entry.)

Increase the proportion of pine in this initial entry by regenerating approximately 15 percent of the area (15 acres), in each unit, with ponderosa pine (see 

appendix H).

Evaluate the need to increase the proportion of pine every 20 years (2025, 

2045, and so forth). Conduct this evaluation immediately after “leave trees” have 

been selected and marked for commercial thinning so that the species composition 

remaining after thinning will be the source of information from which the decision 

to regenerate any entry will be made.

If the species composition is not approaching the desired goal of 80 percent in 

any one of the 10 units, artificially regenerate with pine no more than 15 percent 

of the total area in each of the 10 units (area to be regenerated must be the same in 

each of the 10 plots).
67

Ecological Research in the Goosenesst Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Mandatory Tree Retention Criteria

Retain all the following live trees:

• All white fir >30 inches DBH

• All dominant and codominant ponderosa pine >12 inches DBH

• All sugar pine

• All incense-cedar >10 inches DBH

• All Douglas-fir (note: only one Douglas-fir has been found in the study area).

• Trees similar in size to, and within 2 feet of, chosen leave trees (to minimize

wind throw). Retain all snags (of any species) >15 inches DBH.

Spacing Guidelines

Space between all trees (regardless of species) should be derived from the diameter of 

the larger tree plus 5, plus or minus 10 percent. This value is then multiplied by 12 to 

obtain spacing in feet. The spacing (S, in feet) is a function of tree diameter (DBH, in 

inches):

S = 5 + DBH

For example, a 15-inch-DBH leave tree should have an approximate spacing of 

20 feet to the next leave tree, if there are no mandatory leave trees within the 20-foot 

radius around the subject tree.

Note: Mandatory tree retention criteria have priority over spacing guidelines; 

therefore, a somewhat clumpy distribution of leave trees may result.

Desirable Leave Tree Criteria

• Largest dominants or codominants

• Species in order of preference: ponderosa pine, sugar pine, incense-cedar, 

Douglas-fir, true fir, lodgepole pine

Slash Criteria

• Remove all boles, limbs, and tops of trees >4 inches DBH and <18 inches DBH.

• Remove boles only of trees >18-inch DBH. Buck, lop, and scatter tops and limbs.

• Fall all damaged trees.

• Pre-commercial thin trees <4 inches DBH. Buck, lop, and scatter cut trees.

• Leave all cull (non-commercial) material in the woods.
68

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Regeneration Criteria

Priorities for locating regeneration openings are as follows:

1. Dense clumps of white fir with <30 percent live crown ratio

2. Other dense clumps of white fir

3. Existing openings that will grow 20 cubic feet per acre per year.

Minimum opening size to be regenerated is 0.5 acres and the maximum is 3 

acres, with a minimum dimension of 100 feet and a ratio of dimensions no more 

than 3:1 (openings are to be non-linear). The openings are to be evenly dispersed, if 

possible, and no closer than 200 feet to another opening.

The opening sizes are to be distributed approximately as follows:

• 5 percent of the area in openings 0.5 to 1.0 acre

• 5 percent of the area in openings 1.0 to 2.0 acres

• 5 percent of the area in openings 2.0 to 3.0 acres

Site Preparation and Planting

In Treatments 1 and 2, site preparation for planting will be accomplished by machine piling brush and harvest-created slash and burning the piles the summer 

following tree removal. That fall, the openings will be ripped to reduce competition 

from grass and expose developed soil beneath the pumice layer. 

Plant 100 percent 2-0 bare root ponderosa pine at a density of 300 trees per 

acre, or 12-foot square spacing.

Post-Planting Treatments

Evaluate for need to reduce competing vegetation after the second growing season. 

If cover of grass is >10 or if cover of shrubs and grasses combined is >30 percent, 

remove this vegetation mechanically or by hand.

Evaluate for pre-commercial thinning at 10 and 20 years after planting.

• Thin if space between crowns is less than 5 feet.

• Create a minimum space of 5 feet and a maximum space of 10 feet between 

 crowns.

• Lop and scatter tops and limbs to 12-inch depth. Buck boles to 6-foot lengths.

Evaluate the planted areas for commercial thinning at 20 years and at 10-year 

intervals thereafter. If stand density index exceeds 220, thin these small plantations 

to a stand density index of 205 utilizing the spacing guidelines, mandatory tree 

retention, and desirable leave tree criteria.
69

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Treatment 2: Pine Emphasis with Prescribed Fire

Objective

Thinning objective is the same as objective for Treatment 1. Treatment 2 is identical to Treatment 1, except that prescribed fire is included in Treatment 2. The fire 

reintroduction objectives are to:

• Restore natural, physical, and biological processes by reestablishing a fire 

 regime patterned after the natural fire regime, and

• Determine the effects of this disturbance regime on within-treatment variability.

In the fall (preferably) or spring, after tree removal and pre-commercial thinning activities, re-introduce fire to the entire unit, including the buffer area. Use 

prescribed fire throughout the next 50 years to mimic the natural fire regime, to the 

degree possible. Guidelines for prescribe fire are:

• Prescribed fire should result in no more than 10 percent mortality of the trees 

 <8 inches DBH, and no more than 5 percent mortality of the trees greater 

 than or equal to 8 inches DBH.

• Construct a line around each unit (including the buffer) prior to application of 

 prescribed fire.

• Retain the large snags by constructing a handline around all standing snags 

 >15 inches DBH.

Note: The Klamath National Forest, in preparation for the initial prescribed burns, 

established a network of handlines throughout the treatment units to aid in control 

of the fires. In some instances bulldozers were used for these lines as well. This disturbance, though undesirable for the experiment, was deemed necessary by forest 

managers and those responsible for controlling the burn because of the size of the 

units to be treated.

Treatment 3: Large-Tree-Emphasis Mechanical Treatment

Objective

Maximize individual tree growth and minimize the number and size of forest openings for a 50-year period, while meeting spacing guidelines, desirable leave tree, 

and slash criteria. Trees retained following treatment implementation, should be the 

largest, regardless of species.

• Evaluate for commercial thinning every 10 years thereafter.

• Thin those plots with SDI in excess of 260 back to SDI of 240, utilizing the 

spacing guidelines and slash criteria.
70

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Spacing Guidelines – Apply only to trees <30 inches DBH

• Leave the largest dominant and codominant trees at 18- to 25-foot spacing, 

 regardless of species.

• If trees are the same size (within 2 inches DBH), leave the tree with the great

 est live crown ratio.

• Leave all trees >30 inches DBH; there is no spacing requirement for trees >30 

 inches DBH. Determine the spacing between trees as if the trees >30 inches 

 are not present.

• Leave trees similar in size to, and within 2 feet of, chosen leave-trees (to 

 minimize wind-throw).

Slash Criteria

• Remove all boles, limbs, and tops of trees >4 inches DBH and <18 inches

 DBH.

• Sever the limbs from the boles of all trees >18 inches DBH, but do not 

 remove these limbs from the woods.

• Leave all cull (non-merchantable) material in the woods.

• Remove all damaged trees.

Treatment 4: Control (Minimal Activity)

Objectives

Provide a comparison against which aggressive management activities can be 

evaluated. 

• The only management activities to be utilized in this treatment are fire 

 prevention and fire suppression. 

• No salvage, sanitation, fuelwood cutting will be permitted.

 D.2 Volume Removed

The timber sale contract with Columbia Plywood Corporation estimated 91,553 

green tons of sawtimber (DBH >10 inches) and 21,875 green tons of smaller material to be produced in this sale, for a projected total of 113,428 green tons of product. 

Actual product removed was substantially higher than the contract estimate:

• 170,498 green tons recovered in biomass and sawlogs combined

• Estimated 102,150 green tons of sawlogs and 68,348 green tons of biomass

• 17.570 million board feet in sawlog volume

• 11.71 thousand board feet per acre (average) sawlog volume

• $5,474 million total revenue for sale

We have no product recovery data by species or size classes.
71

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

D.3 Treatment Unit Diameter Distributions after 

Establishment (2002) 

All 20 units were sampled in 2002, as the first post-treatment vegetation survey. 

In the 2002 sample, permanent fixed-area plots were established on every other 

grid point in the treatment unit. Trees greater than 11.5 inches were sampled on a 

0.20 acre plot. Trees between 3.6 and 11.5 were sampled on a 0.05 acre plot. Trees 

less than or equal to 3.5 inches were tallied, by 1-inch diameter classes, on a 0.01 

acre plot. Only trees greater than 3.5 inches in diameter were tagged. Diameter at 

breast height was measured using a diameter tape. We did not establish plots in the 

planted openings at this time. These areas were essentially clearcut, and the only 

trees in the openings at this time are those planted after treatment.

Per-acre estimates are calculated for the entire unit excluding the openings. 

For example, basal area is the estimate from summing basal area per acre; it 

reflects stand conditions of those areas not clearcut. Trees per acre is calculated 

in the same manner, meaning that the number of trees planted in openings is not 

reflected in this value. That is to say, trees per acre is an estimate of the density of 

trees not including planted trees; it assumes 0 trees per acre in the openings. Or it 

can be thought of as an estimate only for those areas in the unit not clearcut. This 

value can be adjusted for the entire treatment unit by taking the total acres planted 

multiplied by 350 trees per acre and divided by 100 acres. However, such a value 

is misleading because it is gives an impression of more trees distributed across the 

unit than is really the case. At this point we are attempting to stratify our units into 

planted areas and those not planted.
72

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Unit 1 (Large-Tree Emphasis) post-treatment basal area estimate, derived 

from a sample of 18 grid points, was 98 ft2 per acre (standard error = 6.0), and the 

quadratic mean diameter was 17.0 inches. Tree density was 62 trees per acre (standard error = 3.9). Ponderosa pine density was 45 trees per acre (standard error = 

4.1). Density of trees >24 inches DBH was 5.8 per acre (standard error = 1.4). Much 

fir was removed from Unit 1 prior to establishment of the experiment; ponderosa 

pine still dominates in most diameter classes (total of 45 trees per acre in ponderosa 

pine). Hence, this stand actually resembles a Pine-Emphasis treatment in some 

respects. The total tally for trees <4 inches DBH was one per acre.

 Unit 2 (Large-Tree Emphasis) post-treatment basal area estimate, derived from a 

sample of 18 grid points, was 87 ft2 per acre (standard error = 4.6), and the quadratic mean diameter was 13.9 inches. Tree density was 82 trees per acre (standard 

error = 4.6). Ponderosa pine density was 17 trees per acre (standard error = 3.6). 

Density of trees >24 inches DBH was 2.7 per acre (standard error = 1.0). White fir 

still dominates all diameter classes in this stand. With so few trees per acre in pine 

it is likely to remain heavy to fir for quite some time. The total tally for trees <4 

inches DBH was zero per acre.

Unit 1 Post Treatment (2002) Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit 2 Post Treatment (2002) Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine
73

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Unit 3 (Pine Emphasis With Fire) post-treatment basal area estimate, derived 

from a sample of 16 grid points not located in regeneration openings, was 97 ft2 per 

acre (standard error = 6.8), and the quadratic mean diameter was 16.4 inches. Tree 

density was 66 trees per acre (standard error = 5.1). Ponderosa pine density was 

54 trees per acre (standard error = 5.9). Density of trees >24 inches DBH was 2.5 

per acre (standard error = 0.8). The total tally for trees <4 inches DBH was one per 

acre, not including those in planted openings. Openings planted to ponderosa pine 

at 350 stems per acre totaled 13.25 acres.

Unit 4 (Control) 2002 basal area estimate, derived from a sample of 18 grid points, 

was 155 ft2 per acre (standard error = 15.9), and the quadratic mean diameter was 

11.1 inches. Tree density was 230 trees per acre (standard error = 28.3). Ponderosa 

pine density was 79 trees per acre (standard error = 14.9). Density of trees >24 

inches DBH was 3.8 per acre (standard error = 1.3). White fir still dominates the 

smaller diameter classes in this stand. The total tally for trees <4 inches DBH was 

114 per acre.

Unit  Post Treatment (2002) Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit  (2002) Diameter Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine
74

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Unit 5 (Pine Emphasis) post-treatment basal area estimate, derived from a sample 

of 13 grid points not located in regeneration openings, was 136 ft2 per acre (standard 

error = 13.1) and the quadratic mean diameter was 16.4 inches. Tree density was 92 

trees per acre (standard error = 8.5). Ponderosa pine density was 74 trees per acre 

(standard error = 11.3). Density of trees >24 inches DBH was 4.6 per acre (standard 

error = 1.3). Ponderosa pine dominates all diameter classes in this stand. The total 

tally for trees <4 inches DBH was two per acre, not including those in planted openings. Openings planted to ponderosa pine at 350 stems per acre totaled 13.19 acres.

Unit 6 (Pine Emphasis With Fire) post-treatment basal area estimate, derived from 

a sample of 16 grid points not located in regeneration openings, was 150 ft2 per acre 

(standard error = 15.8), and the quadratic mean diameter was 18.1 inches. Tree density 

was 83 trees per acre (standard error = 7.1). Ponderosa pine density was 72 trees 

per acre (standard error = 8.7). Density of trees >24 inches DBH was 11.8 per acre 

(standard error = 3.6). This is a nearly pure stand of ponderosa pine. The total tally 

for trees <4 inches DBH was nine per acre, not including those in planted openings. 

Openings planted to ponderosa pine at 350 stems per acre totaled 14.06 acres.

Unit 5 (2002) Post-Treatment Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit  (2002) Post-Treatment Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine
75

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Unit 7 (Pine Emphasis) post-treatment basal area estimate, derived from a sample 

of 16 grid points not located in regeneration openings, was 105 ft2 per acre (standard error = 11.0), and the quadratic mean diameter was 18.7 inches. Tree density 

was 55 trees per acre (standard error = 3.8). Ponderosa pine density was 41 trees 

per acre (standard error = 4.3). Density of trees >24 inches DBH was 9.0 per acre 

(standard error = 2.4). The total tally for trees <4 inches DBH was one tree per acre, 

not including those planted in openings. Openings planted to ponderosa pine at 350 

stems per acre totaled 13.95 acres. Unit 7 also has trace amounts of sugar pine and 

incense-cedar amounting to about two per acre.

Unit 8 (Large-Tree Emphasis) post-treatment basal area estimate, derived from a 

sample of 18 grid points, was 121 ft2 per acre (standard error = 9.1), and the quadratic mean diameter was 17.2 inches. Tree density was 75 trees per acre (standard 

error = 5.6). Ponderosa pine density was 30 trees per acre (standard error = 5.5). 

Density of trees >24 inches DBH was 6.1 per acre (standard error = 1.8). The total 

tally for trees <4 inches DBH was zero per acre.

Unit  (2002) Post-Treatment Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit  (2002) Post-Treatment Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine
76

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Unit 9 (Pine Emphasis) post-treatment basal area estimate, derived from a sample 

of 15 grid points not located in regeneration openings, was 156 ft2 per acre (standard error = 10.5), and the quadratic mean diameter was 17.5 inches. Tree density 

was 93 trees per acre (standard error = 7.7). Ponderosa pine density was 76 trees 

per acre (standard error = 9.9). Density of trees >24 inches DBH was 11.7 per acre 

(standard error = 2.4). The total tally for trees <4 inches DBH was seven per acre, 

not including those planted in openings. Openings planted to ponderosa pine at 350 

stems per acre totaled 14.31 acres.

Unit 10 (Control) 2002 basal area estimate, derived from a sample of 18 grid 

points, was 177 ft2 per acre (standard error = 16.7), and the quadratic mean diameter 

was 11.3 inches. Tree density was 253 trees per acre (standard error = 37.8). Ponderosa pine density was 90 trees per acre (standard error = 23.1). Density of trees 

>24 inches DBH was 5.3 per acre (standard error = 1.2). The total tally for trees <4 

inches DBH was 71. It should be noted that Unit 10 also has significant amounts of 

sugar pine and incense-cedar (about 12 trees per acre, mostly sugar pine).

Unit 9 (2002) Post-Treatment Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit 10 (2002) Diameter Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine
77

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Unit 11 (Large-Tree Emphasis) post-treatment basal area estimate, derived from a 

sample of 19 grid points, was 98 ft2 per acre (standard error = 7.1), and the quadratic mean diameter was 17.7 inches. Tree density was 57 trees per acre (standard error 

= 3.7). Ponderosa pine density was 34 trees per acre (standard error = 4.0). Density 

of trees >24 inches DBH was 4.7 per acre (standard error = 1.4). The total tally for 

trees <4 inches DBH was zero per acre.

Unit 11 (2002) Post-Treatment Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit 12 (Pine Emphasis) post-treatment basal area estimate, derived from a sample 

of 30 grid points not located in regeneration openings, was 104 ft2 per acre (standard error = 5.9), and the quadratic mean diameter was 15.7 inches. Tree density 

was 77 trees per acre (standard error = 5.8). Ponderosa pine density was 38 trees per 

acre (standard error = 3.0). Density of trees >24 inches DBH was 4.7 per acre (standard error = 0.8). The total tally for trees <4 inches DBH was five trees per acre, 

not including those in planted openings. Openings planted to ponderosa pine at 350 

stems per acre totaled 14.44 acres. Unit 12 is the unit with the highest concentration 

of sugar pine and incense-cedar (about 15 trees per acre, mostly sugar pine).

Unit 12 Post-Treatment (2002) Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine
78

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Unit 13 (Pine Emphasis With Fire) post-treatment basal area, derived from a 

sample of 13 grid points not located in regeneration openings, was 105 ft2 per acre 

(standard error = 11.3), and the quadratic mean diameter was 16.2 inches. Tree density was 73 trees per acre (standard error = 7.9). Ponderosa pine density was 31 trees 

per acre (standard error = 8.9). Density of trees >24 inches DBH was 6.2 per acre 

(standard error = 1.7). The total tally for trees <4 inches DBH was four per acre, 

not including those in planted openings. Openings planted to ponderosa pine at 350 

stems per acre totaled 13.25 acres.

Unit 14 (Large-Tree Emphasis) post-treatment basal area, derived from a sample 

of 18 grid points , was 95 ft2 per acre (standard error = 6.0), and the quadratic mean 

diameter was 17.2 inches. Tree density was 59 trees per acre (standard error = 3.9). 

Ponderosa pine density was 27 trees per acre (standard error = 3.6). Density of trees 

>24 inches DBH was 4.4 per acre (standard error = 1.4). The total tally for trees <4 

inches DBH was 2 per acre. There is sparse coverage of incense-cedar and sugar 

pine in this unit (about 6 trees per acre, mostly incense-cedar).

Unit 1 (2002) Post-Treatment Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit 1 (2002) Post-Treatment Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine
79

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Unit 15 (Pine Emphasis With Fire) post-treatment basal area, derived from a 

sample of 12 grid points not located in regeneration openings, was 105 ft2 per acre 

(standard error = 10.2), and the quadratic mean diameter was 17.1 inches. Tree 

density was 66 trees per acre (standard error = 5.3). Ponderosa pine density was 40 

trees per acre (standard error = 6.8). Density of trees >24 inches DBH was 4.6 per 

acre (standard error = 1.3). The total tally for trees <4 inches DBH was six trees 

per acre, not including those in planted openings. Openings planted to ponderosa 

pine at 350 stems per acre totaled 13.84 acres. There are approximately four trees 

per acre of sugar pine in Unit 15. 

Unit 16 (Control) 2002 basal area, derived from a sample of 18 grid points, was 186 

ft2 per acre (standard error = 13.0), and the quadratic mean diameter was 10.9 inches. 

Tree density was 286 trees per acre (standard error = 47.2). Ponderosa pine density 

was 74 trees per acre (standard error = 13.6). Density of trees >24 inches DBH was 

3.9 per acre (standard error = 0.8). The total tally for trees <4 inches DBH was 112 per 

acre. There are approximately two trees per acre of sugar pine in Unit 16.

Unit 15 (2002) Post-Treatment Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit 1 (2002) Diameter Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine
80

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Unit 17 (Pine Emphasis With Fire) post-treatment basal area, derived from a 

sample of 14 grid points not located in regeneration openings, was 90 ft2 per acre 

(standard error = 5.7), and the quadratic mean diameter was 16.4 inches. Tree 

density was 61 trees per acre (standard error = 2.9). Ponderosa pine density was 30 

trees per acre (standard error = 4.5). Density of trees >24 inches DBH was 5.7 per 

acre (standard error = 1.2). The total tally for trees <4 inches DBH was six per acre, 

not including those in planted openings. Openings planted to ponderosa pine at 350 

stems per acre totaled 17.07 acres.

Unit 18 (Control) 2002 basal area estimate, derived from a sample of 17 grid 

points, was 221 ft2 per acre (standard error = 11.0), and the quadratic mean diameter 

was 9.3 inches. Tree density was 467 trees per acre (standard error = 54.4). Ponderosa pine density was 179 trees per acre (standard error = 55.9). Density of trees 

>24 inches DBH was 3.5 per acre (standard error = 0.8). The total tally for trees <4 

inches DBH was 123 trees per acre. 

Unit 1 (2002) Post-Treatment Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit 1 (2002) Diameter Distribution

0

40

80

120

160

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine
81

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Unit 19 (Pine Emphasis) post-treatment basal area, derived from a sample of 12 

grid points not located in regeneration openings, was 111 ft2 per acre (standard error 

= 11.7) and the quadratic mean diameter was 17.6 inches. Tree density was 66 trees 

per acre (standard error = 2.6). Total density of ponderosa pine was 22 trees per 

acre (standard error = 1.9). Density of trees >24 inches DBH was 5 per acre (standard error = 1.4). The tally for trees <4 inches DBH was six per acre, not including 

those in planted openings. Openings planted to ponderosa pine at 350 stems per 

acre totaled 13.84 acres.

Unit 20 (Control) 2002 basal area estimate, derived from a sample of 19 grid points, 

was 286 ft2 per acre (standard error = 15.9) and the quadratic mean diameter was 11.3 

inches. Tree density was 408 trees per acre (standard error = 45.7). Ponderosa pine 

density was 168 (standard error = 35.2). Density of trees >24 inches DBH was 15 per 

acre (standard error = 2.7). The total tally for trees<4 inches DBH was 93 per acre.

Unit 19 (2002) Post-Treatment Diameter Distribution

0

10

20

30

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

Unit 20 (2002) Diameter Distribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

6 10 14 18 22 26 30+

Diameter (inches)

Trees per acre

True Fir

Ponderosa Pine

83

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Appendix E. Tree Harvesting Operations; Dates of 

Thinning by Treatment Units

Plot Treatment Start Date End Date

1 Large Tree May 17, 1999 June 24, 1999

2 Large Tree Sept. 7, 1999 November 9, 1999

3 Pine Emphasis with Fire May 4, 2000 June 19, 2000

4 Control

5 Pine Emphasis June 24, 1999 September 15, 1999

6 Pine Emphasis with Fire October 26, 1998 December 1, 1998

7 Pine Emphasis July 25, 2000 August 29, 2000

8 Large Tree August 23, 2000 October 24, 2000

9 Pine Emphasis August 24, 1998 November 3, 1998

10 Control

11 Large Tree April 17, 2000 May 16, 2000

12 Pine Emphasis June 17, 1999 July 26,1999

13 Pine Emphasis with Fire August 3, 1999 October 4, 1999

14 Large Tree July 27,1998 August 28,1998

15 Pine Emphasis with Fire July 19, 1999 August 9, 1999

16 Control

17 Pine Emphasis with Fire June 8, 2000 July 20, 2000

18 Control

19 Pine Emphasis August 2, 2000 October 19, 2000

20 Control

85

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Appendix F. Understory Removal

Subsequent to mechanical treatment, each of the plots (excluding the control plots) 

was hand cleared of small-diameter understory trees (<4.0 inches DBH). These 

submerchantable trees were cut and left on the ground in all of the units, except in 

the control units where no trees were cut. For the burned units, this treatment took 

place before October 2001, the date of the first prescribed burn.

Unit Date for thinning trees <4 inches DBH

1 June 2000

2 July 2000

3 October 2001

4 N/A (Control)

5 October 1999

6 August 1999

7 October 2001

8 October 2001

9 July 1999

10 N/A (Control)

11 October 2001

12 June 2000

13 August 2000

14 December 1998

15 July 2000

16 N/A (Control)

17 October 2001

18 N/A (Control)

19 October 2001

20 N/A (Control)

87

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Appendix G: Burn Treatments for the Goosenest 

Adaptive Management Area

The burn treatments for all five burn units were completed in October 2001. This 

was not the original intent. Unit 6 was initially scheduled for burning in the fall of 

1999, but an adequate burn window did not develop at that time. In the fall of 2000, 

when the next two units (13 and 15) were scheduled, we again did not have conditions that allowed the burning to be completed. A decision was made to complete 

all five units, if conditions allowed, in 2001. Burning conditions in the fall of 2001 

were within the prescription, and the burning commenced on October 8, 2001. Average cost per acre ranged from $180 to $190.

Date Unit Acres Cost

 October 8 6 52 $9,360

 October 9 6 56 $10,080

October 10 13, 15 150 $28,044

October 12 15, 17 55 $10,477

October 13 17 149 $28,384

October 15 3 65 $12,350

October 16 3 75 $13,500

October 17 3 35 $6,300

Observations during the burning were: time of day, flame length (inches), ambient or dry bulb temperature (Fahrenheit), relative humidity (percent), wind speed 

(miles per hour), and wind direction. 

Unit 6—Day 1, October 8, 2001: This unit was originally scheduled to be burned in 

the fall of 1999. Harvesting in Unit 6 was completed in December of 1998.

Observation Time Flame Ambient Relative Wind Wind

of Length Temperature Humidity Speed Direction

day inches °F percent miles/hour

1 0830 — 39 57 1.4 N

2 0938 — 47 48 0 —

3 0940 16 — — — —

4 1010 — 49 48 0.0 —

5 1015 30 — — — —

6 1040 — 51 45 1.5 N

7 1045 24 — — — —

8 1100 30 50.3 44 1.7 N

9 1115 25 — — — —

10 1130 12 51.5 40 2.4 N

11 1145 24 — — — —

2 1155 — 54.0 30 3.0 N

13 1200 10 — — — —

14 1215 16 — — — —

15 1225 — 57.0 24 0.0 —

Continues on next page
88

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Observation Time Flame Ambient Relative Wind Wind

of Length Temperature Humidity Speed Direction

day inches °F percent miles/hour

16 1230 24 — — — —

17 1245 14 — — — —

18 1255 — 58.5 13 3.1 NW

19 1300 14 — — — —

20 1315 10 — — — —

21 1325 — 60.6 14 2.4 N

22 1330 14 — — — —

23 1345 10 — — — —

24 1355 — 57.6 16 3.2 NW

25 1400 12 — — — —

26 1415 10 — — — —

27 1425 — 57.9 18 0.8 NW

28 1430 14 — — — —

29 1445 12 — — — —

30 1455 — 58.9 21 2.5 NW

31 1500 — — — — —

32 1515 14 — — — —

33 1525 — 59.6 18 1.6 NW

34 1530 14 — — — —

35 1545 10 — — — —

36 1555 — 59.1 15 1.5 NW

37 1600 16 — — — —

38 1615 18 — — — —

39 1625 — 59.0 19 2.7 W

40 1630 20 — — — —

41 1645 18 — — — —

42 1655 — 52.9 32 3.7 NW

43 1700 12 — — — —

44 1707 8 52.9 32 2.1 NW

Unit 6—Day 2, October 9, 2001: The burning in Unit 6 was completed October 9, 2001.

Observation Time Flame Ambient Relative Wind Wind of Length Temperature Humidity Speed Direction day inches °F percent miles/hour

1 0755 — 28.1 71 1.1 N

2 0800 16 — — — —

3 0815 24 — — — —

4 0825 — 32.0 69 0.0 —

5 0830 8 — — — —

6 0845 30 — — — —

7 0855 — 33.9 75 0.0 —

8 0900 24 — — — —

9 0915 20 — — — —

10 0925 — 38.4 66 1.4 NW

11 0930 20 — — — —

12 0945 24 — — — —

Continues on next page
89

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Observation Time Flame Ambient Relative Wind Wind

 of Length Temperature Humidity Speed Direction

 day inches °F percent miles/hour 

13 0955 — 38.9 61 1.6 N

14 1000 10 — — — —

15 1015 10 — — — —

16 1025 — 38.4 55 2.7 NE

17 1030 12 — — — —

18 1045 16 — — — —

19 1055 — 45.2 50 0.0 —

20 1100 12 — — — —

21 1115 10 — — — —

22 1125 — 42.2 41 1.7 NW

23 1130 12 — — — —

24 1145 12 — — — —

25 1155 — 44.8 41 1.1 N

26 1200 10 — — — —

27 1215 12 — — — —

28 1225 — 47.7 35 0.5 N

29 1230 20 — — — —

30 1245 30 — — — —

31 1255 — 49.5 29 0.0 —

32 1300 20 — — — —

33 1315 18 — — — —

34 1325 — 47.5 32 1.7 NW

35 1330 10 — — — —

36 1345 12 — — — —

37 1355 — 50.5 25 1.0 NW

38 1400 12 — — — —

39 1415 12 — — — —

40 1425 — 53.9 21 1.0 N

41 1430 20 — — — —

42 1445 20 — — — —

43 1455 — 54.4 19 2.0 NW

44 1500 20 — — — —

45 1515 16 — — — —

46 1525 — 53.9 12 2.7 N

47 1530 20 — — — —

48 1545 10 — — — —

49 1555 — 55 10 2.3 N

50 1600 12 — — — —

51 1615 16 — — — —

52 1625 — 55.7 9 3.1 NW

53 1630 20 — — — —

54 1645 20 — — — —

55 1655 — 54.2 13 1.7 NW

56 1700 24 — — — — 

57 1715 20 — — — —

58 1725 — 57.0 17 0.0 —
90

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Unit 13­—October 10, 2001: Unit 13 was burned in one day. There is a gap in the records 

for this day because Unit 15 was being burned simultaneously. Between 10:45 and 

13:50 observations were made on Unit 15.

Observation Time Flame Ambient Relative Wind Wind

 of Length Temperature Humidity Speed Direction

 day inches °F percent miles/hour

1 0925 — 36.2 50 1.1 E

2 0930 8 — — — —

3 0945 16 — — — —

4 0955 — 50.3 35 2.0 S

5 1000 10 — — — —

6 1015 20 — — — —

7 1025 — 56.0 23 0.0 —

8 1030 18 — — — —

9 1045 — 52.7 32 0.0 —

10 1350 — 64.7 27 3.0 SW

11 1400 18 — — — —

12 1415 24 — — — —

13 1420 — 60.0 25 2.0 W

14 1430 18 — — — —

15 1445 12 — — — —

16 1450 — 62.5 25 1.5 W

17 1500 20 — — — —

18 1515 18 — — — —

19 1520 — 60.9 24 1.3 W

20 1530 30 — — — —

21 1545 12 — — — —

22 1550 — 61.0 23 1.3 W

Unit 15­—Day 1, October 10, 2001: Unit 15 could not be completed in the first day (75

acres were burned the first day). The southeast corner was completed October 12.

Observation Time Flame Ambient Relative Wind Wind

 of Length Temperature Humidity Speed Direction

 day inches °F percent miles/hour

1 1140 — 52.2 19 1.1 SW

2 1150 20 — — — —

3 1205 20 — — — —

4 1210 — 63.0 15 3.0 W

5 1220 14 — — — —

6 1235 12 — — — —

7 1240 — 63.4 24 3.0 N

8 1250 10 — — — —

9 1305 10 — — — —

10 1310 — 63.7 24 1.1 N

11 1320 48 — — — —

12 1335 36 — — — —

13 1340 — 64.0 22 3.0 SW

14 1700 — 63.8 32 2.4 SW

Continues on next page
91

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Observation Time Flame Ambient Relative Wind Wind

 of Length Temperature Humidity Speed Direction

 day inches °F percent miles/hour

15 1705 16 — — — —

16 1720 12 — — — —

17 1730 — 62.0 27 1.5 W

18 1735 12 — — — —

19 1750 12 — — — —

20 1800 — 60.7 28 2.5 N

21 1805 12 — — — —

Unit 15­—Day 2, October 12, 2001: All of Unit 15 was completed October 12, 2001

Observation Time Flame Ambient Relative Wind Wind

 of Length Temperature Humidity Speed Direction

 day inches °F percent miles/hour

1 0910 — 34.0 57 2.0 E

2 1050 — 50.4 30 0.0 --

3 1155 — 56.4 19 1.5 E

4 1240 — 63.1 28 0.0 --

5 1245 6 — — — —

6 1300 5 — — — —

7 1310 — 57.9 33 2.1 NE

8 1315 4 — — — —

9 1330 6 — — — —

10 1340 — 60.5 33 2.4 NE

11 1345 8 — — — —

12 1400 10 — — — —

13 1410 — 60.2 33 1.8 NE

14 1415 10 — — — —

15 1430 10 — — — —

16 1440 — 61.3 30 2.5 NE

17 1500 12 — — — —

18 1510 — 63.0 36 0.8 NE

19 1515 8 — — — —

20 1530 12 — — — —

21 1540 — 64.0 31 2.9 N

22 1545 8 — — — —
92

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Unit 17—October 13, 2001: Unit 17 was the fourth unit burned. The entire burn (over 100 

acres) was completed in one day, this was a more aggressive application of the burn 

treatment.

Observation Time Flame Ambient Relative Wind Wind

 of Length Temperature Humidity Speed Direction

 day inches °F percent miles/hour

1 0930 — 50.0 59 0 --

2 0950 — 48.0 58 1.5 NW

3 1000 16 — — — —

4 1015 10 — — — —

5 1020 — 48.1 57 2.1 NW

6 1030 10 — — — —

7 1040 — 50.2 50 2.0 NW

9 1100 10 — — — —

10 1110 — 50.5 47 3.0 N

11 1115 10 — — — —

12 1130 8 — — — —

13 1140 — 56.3 43 1.7 NW

14 1145 10 — — — —

15 1200 14 — — — —

16 1210 — 54.0 45 3.0 NW

17 1215 12 — — — —

18 1230 10 — — — —

19 1240 — 57.5 40 2.0 W

20 1245 8 — — — —

21 1300 6 — — — —

22 1310 — 60.0 40 3.6 NW

23 1315 12 — — — —

24 1330 10 — — — —

25 1340 — 63.2 21 2.6 NW

26 1345 10 — — — —

27 1400 12 — — — —

28 1410 — 63.3 18 3.0 NW

29 1415 12 — — — —

30 1430 10 — — — —

31 1440 — 64.0 18 1.5 NW

32 1445 12 — — — —

33 1500 14 — — — —

34 1510 — 65.7 22 0.7 NW

35 1515 16 — — — —

36 1530 12 — — — —

37 1540 — 64.4 23 2.0 NW

38 1545 14 — — — —

39 1600 12 — — — —

40 1610 — 63.7 26 1.0 NW
93

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Unit 3—Day 1, October 15, 2001: Unit 3 was the last unit to be burned. This unit was 

burned very cautiously resulting in a three-day effort (October 15, 16 and 17) to 

complete the project.

Observation Time Flame Ambient Relative Wind Wind

 of Length Temperature Humidity Speed Direction

 day inches °F percent miles/hour

1 1110 — 61.2 31 1.3 W

2 1115 12 — — — —

3 1130 10 — — — —

4 1140 — 69.5 17 1.5 SE

5 1210 — 74.1 15 0.0 —

6 1240 — 73.5 14 1.5 W

7 1310 — 72.0 14 0.0 —

8 1330 20 — — — —

9 1340 — 74.0 12 1.0 SE

10 1345 14 — — — —

11 1400 16 — — — —

12 1410 — 72.0 14 1.0 SE

13 1415 16 — — — —

14 1430 14 — — — —

15 1440 — 72.0 12 2.0 SE

16 1445 18 — — — —

17 1500 20 — — — —

18 1510 — 72.0 14 0.0 —

19 1600 30 — — — —

20 1620 — 71.2 16 2.1 SE

21 1630 24 — — — —

22 1645 24 — — — —

23 1650 — 68.6 18 1.3 SE

24 1700 20 — — — —

25 1715 20 — — — —

26 1720 — 67.2 20 2.8 SE

27 1730 24 — — — —

28 1745 30 — — — —

29 1750 — 65.0 20 2.9 SE
94

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Unit 3—Day 2, October 16, 2001

Observation Time Flame Ambient Relative Wind Wind

 of Length Temperature Humidity Speed Direction

 day inches °F percent miles/hour

1 0830 10 — — — —

2 0840 — 62.5 23 0 --

3 0845 10 — — — —

4 0900 12 — — — —

5 0910 — 63.5 23 1.9 SE

6 0915 12 — — — —

7 0930 14 — — — —

8 0940 — 66.0 23 1.7 SE

8 0945 36 — — — —

9 1110 — 67.7 19 2.7 SE

10 1115 30 — — — —

11 1130 12 — — — —

12 1140 — 65.5 23 1.5 SE

13 1145 20 — — — —

14 1200 24 — — — —

15 1210 — 66.0 24 2.8 SE

16 1215 14 — — — —

17 1240 — 69.0 21 2.9 S

18 1300 12 — — — —

19 1310 — 66.6 25 3.3 S

20 1315 36 — — — —

21 1340 — 67.0 23 1.3 S

22 1345 14 — — — —

23 1400 16 — — — —

24 1410 — 66.5 24 1.7 S

25 1430 20 — — — —

26 1440 — 64.6 24 3.0 S

27 1500 14 — — — —

28 1510 — 64.5 24 1.7 S

29 1515 20 — — — —

30 1530 14 — — — —

Unit 3—Day 3, October 17, 2001

Observation Time Flame Ambient Relative Wind Wind

 of Length Temperature Humidity Speed Direction

 day inches °F percent miles/hour

1 0825 — 44.0 63 0.7 N

2 0845 10 — — — —

3 0855 — 44.0 56 2.2 N

4 0900 20 — — — —

5 0915 12 — — — —

6 0925 — 44.0 59 2.3 N

7 0930 14 — — — —

8 0945 18 — — — —

9 0955 — 45.2 54 1.0 N

10 1000 24 — — — —

11 1015 12 — — — —

12 1025 — 45.2 54 1.0 N
95

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Appendix H. Planted Openings

Planting in Treatments 1 and 2 was scheduled for the second spring following the harvest. 

No planting is planned for Treatment 3 and planting is not allowed in the control units 

(Treatment 4). There were a total of 141.2 acres regenerated to pine in small openings; we 

targeted 150 acres, 15 acres in each of the 10 units receiving Treatments 1 and 2. Openings were ripped to a depth of up to 3 feet the first year after the units were harvested. The 

prescription called for planting the following spring using 2-0 bare-root stock at a density 

of 300 trees per acre. After planting, it was confirmed by the district that the actual planting 

density was 350 trees per acre. This is a difference in spacing of about 1 foot (300 trees per 

acre is a 12-foot spacing, and 350 trees per acre is about an 11-foot spacing).

The dates for planting the openings were:

Unit Treatment Planting Date

	 3	 Pine Emphasis with fire	 Spring 2002

5 Pine Emphasis Spring 2001

	 6	 Pine Emphasis with fire	 Spring 2000

7 Pine Emphasis Spring 2002

9 Pine Emphasis Spring 2000

12 Pine Emphasis Spring 2001

	 13	 Pine Emphasis with fire	 Spring 2001

	 15	 Pine Emphasis with fire	 Spring 2001

	 17	 Pine Emphasis with fire 	 Spring 2002

19 Pine Emphasis Spring 2002

Subsequent to planting, the regeneration was scheduled to be surveyed to determine 

success of plantings. This survey was scheduled for 1 year and 3 years after planting. As a 

result of these surveys, some units will be replanted in spring 2004.

In 1997 we developed iso-density maps of each of the 10 units to be regenerated. We 

used the pre-treatment sample to develop these for stems per unit area, basal area per unit 

area, and stand density index. These maps were used to locate areas of high concentrations 

of fir for conversion to pine. These areas were located on the ground, and then boundaries 

were established within each unit such that the areas summed as close as possible to 15 

acres. The 15-acre target was only a goal and was not achieved exactly on any of the plots. 

Most were a little below the target acreage. Following is information on locations and 

sizes of regeneration openings. The openings were targeted to one of three different size 

classes: small (approximately 0.5-1.0 acres), medium (approximately 1.0-2.0 acres), large 

(approximately 2.0-3.0 acres). The prescription called for an approximately equal (5 acres) 

distribution of acres in each opening size.
96

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Although we intended that all trees be removed from these openings, in some 

instances, individual trees were left standing. This was particularly true in those 

instances when healthy codominant sugar pine trees were found in the openings, 

the rationale being that sugar pine is relatively rare on the AMA, and we would like 

to make every reasonable effort to maintain a viable population.

Unit 3, Pine Emphasis with Fire (fig. H.1). Distribution of regeneration openings 

by size (acres). Total acreage in openings for unit 3 is 13.25 acres.

Unit 5, Pine Emphasis (fig. H.2). Distribution of regeneration openings by size 

(acres). Total acreage in openings for unit 5 is 13.19 acres.

No. Small Medium Large

1 0.51 — —

2 0.55 — —

3 — 1.26 —

4 — 1.32 —

5 — 1.20 —

6 — 1.22 —

7 0.68 — —

8 1.10 — —

9 — — 1.94

10 — — 2.93

11 0.54 — —

Total 3.38 5.00 4.87

Figure H.1—Location of regeneration openings in unit 3, with grid point references.

No. Small Medium Large

1 — 1.63 —

2 — — 2.54

3 — — 1.92

4 — 1.20 —

5 0.49 — —

6 0.96 — —

7 0.76 — —

8 — 1.58 —

9 0.45 — —

12 — 1.15 —

13 0.51 — —

Total 3.17 5.56 4.46

Figure H.2—Location of regeneration openings in unit 5, with grid point references.
97

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Unit 6, Pine Emphasis with Fire (fig. H.3). Distribution of regeneration openings 

by size (acres). Total acreage in openings for unit 6 is 14.06 acres.

No. Small Medium Large

1 — — 2.34

2 — 1.87 —

4 — — 2.09

6 0.81 — —

7 — 1.58 —

8 — 1.59 —

9 0.52 — —

10 0.72 — —

11 0.67 — —

12 0.60 — —

13 — 1.27 —

Total 3.32 6.31 4.43

Figure H.3—Location of regeneration openings in unit 6, with grid point references.

Unit 7, Pine Emphasis (fig. H.4). Distribution of regeneration openings by size 

(acres). Total acreage in openings in unit 7 is 13.95 acres.

No. Small Medium Large

1 — 1.67 —

2 — — 2.97

3 0.55 — —

4 — — 1.94

5 0.99 — —

6 0.74 — —

7 0.96 — —

8 — 1.67 —

9 0.79 — —

10 — 1.67 —

Total 4.03 5.01 4.91

Figure H.4—Location of regeneration openings in unit 7, with grid point references.
98

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Unit 12, Pine Emphasis (fig. H.6). Distribution of regeneration openings by size 

(acres). Total acreage in openings for unit 12 is 14.44 acres.

Unit 9, Pine Emphasis (fig. H.5). Distribution of regeneration openings by size 

(acres). Total acreage in openings for unit 9 is 14.31 acres.

No. Small Medium Large

1 — — 2.25

2 — — 3.22

3 — 1.58 —

5 — 1.36 —

6 0.40 — —

7 0.62 — —

8 — 0.90 —

9 0.55 — —

10 — 1.98 —

11 0.72 — —

12 0.73 — —

Total 3.02 5.82 5.47

Figure H.5—Location of regeneration openings in unit 9, with grid point references.

No. Small Medium Large

1 0.72 — —

2 — 1.53 —

3 0.70 — —

4 — — 3.22

5 0.82 — —

6 — 1.20 —

7 — 1.12 —

8 — 0.97 —

11 0.62 — —

13 — — 2.95

14 0.59 — —

Total 3.45 4.82 6.17

Figure H.6—Location of regeneration openings in unit 12, with grid point references.
99

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Unit 13, Pine Emphasis with Fire (fig. H.7). Distribution of regeneration openings by size (acres). Total acreage in openings for unit 13 is 13.25 acres.

No. Small Medium Large

1 0.60 — —

2 — 0.99 —

4 — — 2.18

6 0.85 — —

7 — 1.06 —

8 0.73 — —

9 0.45 — —

10 — — 2.64

12 — 1.13 —

14 0.63 — —

15 — 1.99 —

Total 3.26 5.17 4.82

Figure H.7—Location of regeneration openings in unit 13, with grid point references.

Unit 15, Pine Emphasis with Fire (fig. H.8). Distribution of regeneration openings by size (acres). Total acreage in openings is 13.84 acres. 

No. Small Medium Large

1 — 1.38 —

2 0.65 — —

3 0.68 — —

4 — — 3.03

5 — 0.99 —

8 — 1.70 —

9 — — 1.80

10 — 1.40 —

12 0.62 — —

13 0.90 — —

14 0.69 — —

Total 3.54 5.47 4.83

Figure H.8—Location of regeneration openings in unit 15, with grid point references.
100

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Unit 19, Pine Emphasis (fig. H.10). Distribution of regeneration openings by size 

(acres). Total acreage in openings for unit 19 is 13.84 acres.

Figure H.10—Location of regeneration openings in unit 19, with grid point references.

Unit 17, Pine Emphasis with Fire (fig. H.9). Distribution of regeneration openings 

by size (acres). Total acreage in openings for unit 17 is 17.07 acres.

No. Small Medium Large

1 0.87 — —

2 0.70 — —

3 — 1.13 —

4 0.76 — —

5 0.61 — —

6 0.65 — —

7 0.45 — —

8 — 1.00 —

9 — 1.03 —

10 — — 2.23

11 — — 2.87

12 — 1.43 —

13 — — 3.34

Total 4.04 4.59 8.44

Figure H.9—Location of regeneration openings in unit 17, with grid point references. 

No. Small Medium Large

1 — — 2.54

2 — 1.53 —

3 — — 2.71

4 — 1.01 —

5 0.89 — —

6 0.85 — —

7 — 1.01 —

8 0.93 — —

9 0.39 — —

10 — 1.98 —

Total 3.06 5.53 5.25
101

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Appendix I. Species Listings

These species were all observed during pre-treatment or (in the case of herbaceous 

vegetation) post-treatment surveys. Plants are listed alphabetically, by scientific 

name, within groups. A separate list of uncommon forbs is presented. These may 

have been misidentified, or more likely, they were found infrequently. Reptiles and 

amphibians recorded are those observed while conducting other surveys. 

Plants

TREES

White fir Abies concolor

Red fir Abies magifica

Western juniper Juniperus occidentalis

Incense-cedar Libocedrus decurrens

Knobcone pine Pinus attenuata

Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa

Sugar pine Pinus lambertiana

Lodgepole pine Pinus contorta

Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii

SHRUBS

Greenleaf manzanita Arctostaphylos patula

Big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata

Serviceberry Amalanchier alnifolia

Mahalamat (squaw carpet) Ceanothus prostratus

Snowbrush Ceanothus velutinus

Mountain mahogany Cercocarpus ledifolius

Princes’s pine Chimaphila umbellata

Bush chinquapin Chrysolepis sempervirens

Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus spp.

Bloomers goldenbush Ericameria bloomeri

Bitter cherry Prunus emarginata

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana

Bitterbrush Purshia tridentata

Wax currant Ribes cereum

Sierra gooseberry Ribes roezlii
102

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Sticky currant Ribes viscosissimum

Wood rose Rosa gymnocarpa

Interior rose Rosa woodsii

Creeping snowberry Symphoricarpos mollis

GRASSES

California brome Bromus carinatus

Cheat grass Bromus tectorum

Needlegrass Achnatherum occidentalis

Squirreltail Elymus elymoides

Idaho fescue Festuca idahoensis

Western fescue Festuca occidentalis

Bluegrass Poa pratensis

FORBS

Pussy-toes Antennaria geyeri

Pussy-toes Antennaria rosea

Bitter dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium

Rock cress Arabis holboellii

Sedge Carex inops

 Carex rossii

Carex whitneyi

Elk thistle Cirsium sacriosum

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare

Clarkia Clarkia rhomboidea

Miner’s lettuce Claytonia perfoliata

Claytonia Claytonia rubra

Collinsia Collinsia grandiflora

Blue-eyed Mary Collinsia parviflora

Collomia Collomia grandiflora

Cryptantha Cryptantha affins

Cryptantha Cryptantha ambigua

Fireweed Epilobium angustifolium

Epilobium minutum

Wild buckwheat Eriogonum nudum

Woolly sunflower Eriophyllum lanatum

Western wallflower Erysimum capitatum

Mountain strawberry Fragaria virginiana
103

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Gayophytum Gayophytum diffusum

Hawkweed Hieracium albiflorum

Hieracium bolanderi

Horkelia Horkelia fusca

Kelloggia Kelloggia galioides

Lettuce Lactuca serriola

Lactuca tieracium

Wild pea Lathyrus lanszwertii

Washington lily Lilium washingtonianum

Lupine Lupine argenteus

Tarweed Madia minima

Blazing star Mentzelia dispersa

Monardella Monardella odoratissima

Beardtongue Penstemon gracilentus

Penstemon humilis

Penstemon roezlii

Phacelia Phacelia hastata

Phacelia heterophylla

Phlox Phlox diffusa

Phlox gracilis

Piperia Piperia unalascensis

Pinedrops Pterospora andromedea

White-veined wintergreen Pyrola picta

Groundsel Senecio aronicoides

 Senecio integerrimus

Catchfly Silene lemmonii

Vetch Vicia Americana

Violet Viola purpurea

UNCOMMON FORBS

 Agoseris grandiflora

Agoseris heterophylla

Agoseris retrorsa

Arnica discoidea

Astragalus spp.

Indian paintbrush Castilleja applegatei

Monkeyflower Mimulus jepsonii

Cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis
104

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

False Solomon’s seal Smilacina stellata

Chickweed Stellaria longipes

Mullein Verbascum thapsus

Birds

APODIFORMES (Swifts and hummingbirds)

APODIDAE (Swifts)

Vaux’s Swift Chaetura vauxi

TROCHILIDAE (Hummingbirds)

Black-chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri

CAPRIMULGIFORMES (Goatsuckers)

CAPRIMULGIDAE (Goatsuckers) 

Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttalii

CICONIIFORMES (Herons, Storks, Ibises and relatives)

CATHARTIDAE (New World Vultures)

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura

COLUMBIFORMES (Pigeons and Doves)

COLUMBIDAE (Pigeons and Doves)

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura

FALCONIFORMES (Vultures, Hawks and Falcons)

ACCIPITRIDAE (Hawks, Old World Vultures and Harriers)

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperi

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

GALLIFORMES (Pheasants and relatives)

PHASIANIDAE (Quails, Pheasants, and relatives)

Blue Grouse Dendragapus obsurus
105

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

ODONTOPHORIDAE (New World Quail)

Mountain Quail Oreortyx pictus

PASSERIFORMES (Perching Birds)

TYRANNIDAE (Tyrant Flycatchers)

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus borealis cooperi

Hammond’s Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii

Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri

VIREONIDAE (Vireos)

Cassin’s Vireo Vireo cassinii

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus

CORVIDAE (Jays Magpies and Crows)

Common Raven Corvus corax

Stellar’s Jay Cyanocitta stelleri

Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis

PARIDAE (Titmice)

Mountain Chickadee Parus gambeli

SITTIDAE (Nuthatches)

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinesis

Pygmy Nuthatch Sitta pygmaea

CERTHIIDAE (Creepers)

Brown Creeper Certhia americana

REGULIDAE 

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa

TURDIDAE

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus

Townsend’s Solitaire Myadestes townsendi

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides

American Robin Turdus migratorius
106

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

STURNIDAE (Starlings)

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris

EMBERIZIDAE (Wood Warblers, Sparrows, Blackbirds, and relatives)

Hermit Warbler Dendroica occidentalis

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata

Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla

THRAUPIDAE (Tanagers)

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana

EMBERIZADAE (Emberizines)

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca

Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina

CARDINALIDAE (Cardinals, Grosbeaks & Allies)

Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus

ICTERIDAE (Blackbirds, Orioles & Allies)

Brewers Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus

Brown-headed Cowbird Malothrus ater

FRINGILLIDAE (Finches)

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus

Lesser Goldfinch Carduelis psaltria

Cassin’s Finch Carpodacus cassinii

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra

PICIFORMES (Woodpeckers and relatives)

PICIDAE (Woodpeckers and Wrynecks)

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus
107

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus

Red-naped Sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis

Red-breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber

Williamson’s Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus

STRIGIFORMES (Owls)

STRIGIDAE (Typical Owls)

Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus

Long-eared Owl Asio otus

Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina

Infrequent sightings of migratory birds:

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus

Mammals

ARTIODACTYLA (Even-toed Ungulates)

CERVIDAE (Deer, Elk and relatives)

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

CARNIVORA (Carnivores)

MEPHITIDAE (Skunks)

Spotted skunk Spilogale putori

INSECTIVORA (Insectivores)

SORICIDAE (Shrews)

Shrew Sorex sp.

LAGOMORPHA (Rabbits, Hares, and Pikas)

LEPORIDAE (Rabbits and Hares)

Snowshoe hare Lepus americanus

RODENTIA (Squirrels, Rats, Mice, and relatives)

SCIURIDAE (Squirrels, Chipmunks, and Marmots)

Northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus

Golden-mantled ground squirrel Spermopholus lateralis

Douglas squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasi

Yellow pine chipmunk Tamius ameonus
108

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Least chipmunk Tamius minimus

Allen’s or shadow chipmunk Tamius senex

MURIDAE

Vole Microtus sp.

Mountain vole Microtus montanus

Bushy-tailed woodrat Netoma cinerea

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Pinon mouse Peromyscus trueii

MUSTELIDAE (Weasels and relatives)

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata

PROCYONIDAE (Raccoons and relatives)

Ringtail Bassariscus astutus

URSIDAE (Bears)

Black bear Ursus americanus

Amphibians

ANURA SALIENTIA (Frogs and Toads)

BUFONIDAE (True Toads)

Western toad Bufo boreas

HYLIDAE (Treefrogs and relatives)

Pacific treefrog Hyla regilla

Reptiles

SQUAMATA (Lizards and Snakes)

ANGUIDAE (Alligator Lizards and relatives)

Northern alligator lizard Gerrhonotus coeruleus shastensis

BOIDAE (Boas)

Rubber boa Charina bottae

PHRYNOSOMATIDAE

Short-horned horned lizard Phrynosoma douglassii
109

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

Appendix J. Memorandum of Understanding

The memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed by Barbara Holder, Forest 

Supervisor, Klamath National Forest, and Garland Mason acting for Hal Salwasser, 

Station Director, Pacific Southwest Research Station. The original MOU was effective from July 22, 1997 until July 22, 2003.

The dates in the timeline were approximates developed in advance of the work 

to be done. Some of those dates were not met. In particular, it was not practical 

to complete the harvesting in two summers. The commercial thinning operations 

took three seasons to complete and the complete suite of treatments was not actually completed (removal of sub-merchantable material, ripping and planting) until 

spring 2002 when the last of the regeneration units was planted.
110

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Memorandum of understanding

between

PACIFIC SOUTHWEST RESEARCH STATION

FOREST SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

and

KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST

FOREST SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

for

The design, development, and implementation of interdisciplinary research, to 

provide information on the effects of different management strategies to accelerate 

the development of late successional pine forests on biodiversity and sustainable 

productivity. 

This MEMORANDUM, made and entered into the 22nd day of July, 1997, by and 

between the Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, hereinafter referred to as the STATION, and the Klamath National 

Forest, Pacific southwest Region, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

hereinafter referred to as the FOREST, 

WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, the STATION is responsible for and conducts a program of research, 

and is active in the development and dissemination of scientific information and 

technology; and 

WHEREAS, the FOREST is responsible for the management of National Forest 

Lands under its jurisdiction according to the policies and regulations of the Forest 

Service, as specified in Federal Law; and 

WHEREAS, the STATION‘S responsibilities for investigations of the impacts of 

both human-induced and natural disturbances on biodiversity and long-term productivity; and 

WHEREAS, the FOREST Land and Resource Management Plan includes responsibilities for the “development of ecosystem management approaches . . . for management of pine forests, . . . including production and maintenance of late-successional 

forests”; and 
111

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

WHEREAS, both parties have the common objective of promoting and facilitating 

implementation of ecosystem research and management; and 

WHEREAS, it is to the distinct advantage of both parties to create and expand the 

cooperative partnership described in this Memorandum. 

 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises, the parties hereto 

agree as follows: 

I. Purpose 

The purpose of this memorandum is to establish the basis for a partnership of 

people and organizations with the common goal of performing forest ecosystem 

research on accelerating the development of young growth forests to rapidly 

achieve old growth structure and function characteristics. The primary objective of this partnership will be to develop and implement a large-scale, longterm interdisciplinary research project that meets the stated purpose. In order to 

achieve this goal, it will be necessary to focus interest, activities, and resources 

of both parties to develop treatments, locate and monument plots, install treatments, and collect and analyze response data. 

II. Definition of the problem and Background 

The Final supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Management 

of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within 

the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl states that “the primary objective of 

the 10 Adaptive Management Areas is the development and testing of new approaches for integration and achievement of ecological and economic health, 

and other social objectives” (page 2-12). 

The Record of Decision for the above mentioned EIS documents the emphasis 

for the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area as the “development of ecosystem management approaches, including use of prescribed burning and other 

silvicultural techniques, for management of pine forest, including objectives 

related to forest health, production and maintenance of late-successional forest 

and riparian habitat, and commercial timber production” (page D-14). 

The FOREST managers analyzed public comments and prioritized research 

projects to be implemented in the Adaptive Management Area. The need to 

“test treatments which can speed the development of stands to supply greater 
112

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

kinds and amounts of old-growth characteristics” was identified for the pine/fir 

transition zone in the AMA. 

III. It Is Agreed by the Parties That: 

1. Initial partners to this cooperation are the STATION and the FOREST. Additional partners will be sought as appropriate to further the combined objectives. 

Potential partners include, but are not limited to: universities with particular 

skills and interests in the subject area, additional National Forests, Federal 

Agencies, private industry, and State organizations. 

 2. A steering committee will be formed for the purpose of maintaining oversight and providing coordination of efforts. One or more representative(s) of 

each participating organization will serve on the steering committee. This 

committee will meet at least annually to evaluate progress of the work, resolve 

difficulties, identify new areas of cooperation and create a yearly work plan. 

The committee will initially be composed of representatives of the Station 

Director and Forest Supervisor, the Goosenest Ranger District, and two 

members of the STATION science team. Additional members will be added, 

as deemed necessary by the committee. 

Leadership of the committee will be on an annual basis as determined 

by the committee. 

3. The FOREST agrees the STATION will have administrative responsibility of 

the research plots and the 100 meter area surrounding each of the research plots. 

This agreement shall be binding for a period of five years, at which time this 

agreement will be evaluated for extension. 

4. The FOREST agrees to provide fire protection, law enforcement, road closures, and prohibit any activity detrimental to achieving the research objective 

in the research plots and adjacent areas for the duration of this Memorandum. 

5. All parties to this Memorandum, including those who later join, agree to 

actively contribute to the development and promotion of the research. The 

interests, responsibilities, and contributions of each partner will be coordinated 

and guided by the steering committee; and on the ground coordination will be 

ensured through the submission of a Notice of Intent (See supplement D). 
113

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

6. Nothing herein shall be considered as obligating the Forest Service to expend or as involving the united States in any contract or other obligation for 

the future payment of money in excess of appropriations authorized by law and 

administratively located for this work.

7. This instrument is neither a fiscal nor a funds obligation document. Any 

endeavor involving reimbursement or contribution of funds between the parties 

to this instrument will be handled in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and procedures. such endeavors will be outlined in formal amendments 

to this Memorandum that shall be made in writing by representatives of the 

parties and shall be independently authorized by appropriate statutory authority. 

This instrument does not provide such authority. Any contract or agreement for 

training or other services must fully comply with all applicable requirements for 

competition.

8. Modifications within the scope of this instrument shall be made by mutual 

consent of the parties, by the issuance of a written modification, signed and 

dated by both parties, prior to any changes being performed. 

9. The principal contacts for this instrument are: 

Pacific Southwest Research Klamath National Forest 

Station, Forest Service, USDA Forest Service, USDA 

Kathleen Harcksen Thomas Farmer 

2400 Washington Ave. 37805 Highway 97 

Redding, CA 96001 Macdoel, CA 96058

(916) 246-5455 (916) 398-4391 

10. This instrument is executed as of the date first shown above and expires no 

later than July 22, 2003, at which time it is subject to review, renewal, or expiration. 

11. Attached to this Memorandum are Supplements for: 

A. Responsibilities 

B. Time Frames 

C. Legal Descriptions, and 

D. Notice of Intent 
114

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Additional Supplements will be attached, as needed. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Memorandum of 

understanding as of the date first written above. 

PACIFIC SOUTHWEST KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST 

RESEARCH STATION PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION

FOREST SERVICE FOREST SERVICE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

By By

Name HAL SALWASSER Name BARBARA HOLDER

Title Station Director Title Forest Supervisor
115

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Supplement A

RESPONSIBILITIES

The STATION shall: 

a. Develop the Treatment Descriptions 

b. Develop the Silvicultural Prescriptions 

c. Develop the Marking Guidelines 

d. Draft a Memorandum of Understanding, to include 

Time Frames (Supplement B) 

Protection Needs (Item 4 , Page 3) 

Land Allocation Commitment (Item 3, Page 3 ) 

Discussion regarding activities adjacent to Research Plots (Item 3, Page 3) 

e. Submit a brief summary of the research project to the Regional Ecosystem 

office, if the project is determined to pose a significant risk to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives or not comply with Standards and Guidelines. 

f. Participate in Public Involvement Meetings 

g. Cooperate in the Analysis of Public Comments 

h. Review the NEPA Document 

i. Develop the prescribed fire strategy

l. Provide input to the SAI Plan 

m. Develop and Administer the Post Harvest Activities Contracts 

n. Oversee Timber sale preparation 

o. Participate in Development of Special “C” provisions 

p. Assist in the administration of the Timber Sale Contract 

The Goosenest Ranger District Shall: 

a. Draft a Project Initiation Letter and News Release for Public Involvement.

b. Assess research activities to determine if they are consistent with the objectives of the appropriate Standards and Guidelines.

c. Implement the NEPA Process 

Conduct/Oversee Field Surveys for Environmental Reports 

Develop Environmental Resource Reports 

Conduct Public Involvement 

Analyze Public Comments 

Draft Environmental Document 
116

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

d. Amend the FOREST LMP land allocation 

e. Prepare the Timber Sales 

Designate Timber

Prepare Maps

f . Develop the Appraisal and Contract 

Prepare the Special “C” Provisions

Prepare the SAI Plan

g. Provide normal funding costs for timber sale contract administration

h. Provide FSR for the Timber Sale Contract

i. Cooperate during prescribed burn

j. Develop burn plans

k. Assist during implementation of treatments and SAI Plan

l. Develop and implement any necessary agreements with Allotment Permittee

m. Responsible for Fire Protection, Road Closures and Law Enforcement

n. Determine the Responsible official for NEPA purposes 
117

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Supplement B

TIME FRAMES (Critical Path)

Collect Baseline Data PSW Summer ’95-‘97

Wildlife, Vegetation 

Field Identify Plot Boundaries PSW Summer ’95-‘96

Locate/Monument Permanent Plot Centers PSW Summer ’95-‘96

Begin NEPA field work KNF Summer ‘96

 Archeological Survey 

 Wildlife 

Owl survey 

 Browse Species and Use

 Goshawk Survey

Begin Public Involvement PSW&KNF Summer ’96-‘97

Develop Silvicultural Prescriptions PSW Winter ’96-‘97

(Treatment Descriptions)

Develop Marking Guidelines PSW Winter ’96-‘97

Develop cooperative grazing plan KNF Summer ‘97

Write NEPA Reports KNF Winter ’96-‘97

ARR 

BE 

CEA (owl, watershed) 

Fuels Plan 

Transportation Plan 

Prepare Environmental Analysis KNF Summer ‘97

Develop Sale Area Improvement Plan PSW&KNF Summer ‘97
118

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

Prepare Timber Sales PSW&KNF Summer ‘97

Develop and get Approval of Special “C” Provisions PSW&KNF Fall ‘97

Develop Appraisal and Contract KNF Winter ’97-‘98

Sell the Timber Sale KNF Spring ‘98

Harvest Treatments & Sale Administration PSW&KNF Summer ’98&’99

Conduct Prescribed Fire PSW&KNF Fall ‘99&’00

Prepare for Planting KNF Summer ‘00&’01

Plant Openings KNF Spring ‘01&’02

Begin Collecting Response Data PSW Summer ‘01
119

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Supplement C

LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS

Legal Description and Maps of land parcels described in the Memorandum of understanding, Page 3, Section III, Item 3. (Attach maps) 

All parcels are contained within the following Sections of T43N, R1E: 

South 1/2 Sections 2, 3, & 18 

North 1/2 Sections 14 & 19 

Sections 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 29 
120

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PSW-GTR-192

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Supplement D

NOTICE OF INTENT

As the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area (GAMA) is the site of a large-scale, 

interdisciplinary research project, many field activities are already underway. Activities underway or completed as of October, 1996 include: 

Plot boundary location (flagging, blazing, painting) 

Permanent plot location and monumenting (survey equipment, stakes, rebar) 

Vegetation data collection (transect location, tree identification) 

Herbarium development (plant collection) 

Wildlife data collection (pitfall traps, transect location) 

Activities planned for FY97 field season include: 

Entomology sampling (net tents, pitfall traps, hanging funnel traps) 

Surveys by District personnel: Wildlife, sensitive plants, archeology, engineering 

With the tremendous number of people working at GAMA starting FY96, the fact 

that some sampling will be destructive, and the risk of loss due to walking, stumbling, and trampling - the need for coordination exists. Many of the activities have 

the potential to cause problems for others involved in this initial phase. Also, many 

of the activities could result in damage to data collection devices and locations 

belonging to others (destructive root sampling on a vegetation sampling transect or 

stumbling into a pitfall trap). 

Therefore, to insure proper coordination and reduce potential damage to on-going or 

planned activities, a Notice of Intent shall be filed prior to conducting any activity. 

The Notice of Intent is an internal Forest Service coordination document and includes all the cooperators working on the project. 

The Notice of Intent will include: 

A description of the proposed activities 

A definition of the activities (installation, surveys, data collection, etc.) 

The time frames encompassed by the activities 

A description of the activity locations 

A 1:24,000 map with activity locations depicted 
121

Ecological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in Northeastern California

*The Notice of Intent is required prior to each field season or prior to initiation of 

a new activity. The Notice of Intent must be approved by a two-thirds majority of 

the core Interdisciplinary Team before any activities can proceed in the Goosenest 

Project Area. 

Please send your Notice of Intent for field activities at GAMA to: 

Martin Ritchie, Redding Silviculture Lab 

3644 Avtech Parkway

Redding, CA 96002

(530) 226-2551 FAX (530) 226-5091 

Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper
Martin W. Ritchie 

Management Area in Northeastern CaliforniaEcological Research at the Goosenest Adaptive 

May 2005PSW-GTR-192ReportGeneral Technical Research StationPacific Northwest Forest ServiceAgricultureDepartment of United States