Clackamas  Stewardship  Partners     Field  Trip  to  the  Hunter  Planning  Area  -­‐  June  9,  2015   Notes  taken  by  Molly  McKnight       Office  Orientation     District  Ranger  Jackie  Groce  described  the  various  management  directions  that  guide  project  planning   on  the  Mt.  Hood  National  Forest:     • The  Mt.  Hood  National  Forest  Land  and  Resources  Management  Plan  designates  land  allocations   with  specific  management  directions  for  each  unit.    This  includes  wilderness  and  wild  &  scenic   rivers  areas  that  are  designated  “congressionally  withdrawn”.         http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/mthood/landmanagement/planning     • The  Northwest  Forest  Plan  designates  areas  as  Late  Successional  Reserve,  Riparian  Reserve,   Matrix  or  Adaptive  Management  Areas.    These  management  areas  overlay  the  Mt.  Hood  Forest   Plan  land  allocation.     http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/mthood/landmanagement/planning       • Recently  the  US  Fish  &  Wildlife  Service  designated  critical  habitats  for  the  northern  spotted  owl   and  management  within  critical  habitats  must  meet  certain  criteria.    Information  about  the  NSO   recovery  plan  including  links  to  maps  of  critical  habitat  can  be  found  at     http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/Recovery.asp     Jackie  said  that  the  Mt.  Hood  NF  had  recently  completed  a  forest-­‐wide  integrated  resource  planning   exercise  to  identify  future  resource  management  project  planning  areas.    Hunter  came  us  as  the  next   large  project  area  for  the  Clackamas  River  Ranger  District.    The  next  one  for  the  district  will  probably  be   an  area  called  North  Clackamas.       With  Hunter  USFS  would  like  to  widen  the  scope  of  resource  management  projects.    Hunter  (the  Upper   Clackamas  watershed)  is  about  100,000  acres  in  size.  There  are  about  2,500  acres  of  plantations.     The  Upper  Clackamas  Watershed  Analysis  document  is  20  years  old.    Recommendations  in  the   document  were  based  on  earlier  conditions  that  have  changed.    For  example,  the  amount  of  early  seral   habitat  has  decreased  a  lot  in  the  past  20  years.    Some  recommendations  have  been  implemented   (many  road  closures)  and  other  recommendations  are  no  longer  a  concern  (hydrologic  function).          

Field  Trip  Stop  1  –  Potential  Plantation  Treatment  for  Forage  Enhancement  –  Road  4661-­‐190                           This  90  acre  stand  was  regenerated  after  harvest  in  1959  (about  55  years  old).    The  B11  Summer  Range   land  allocation  is  relatively  flat  with  no  streams.    Jim  Roden  said  that  the  stand  varies  over  the  90  acres,   with  some  areas  where  trees  are  sparser  and  where  areas  where  there  is  more  brush.    An  idea  under   consideration  would  harvest  trees  in  order  to  promote  plants  that  make  good  forage  for  big  game.     There  are  some  understory  species  present  that  are  palatable  to  big  game  like  ceanothus,  trailing   blackberry,  Oregon  boxwood,  and  vine  maple.    The  Northwest  Forest  Plan  would  require  15%  tree   retention  with  10%  in  “skips”  and  5%  scattered  trees.    The  standards  and  guidelines  for  B11  require  a   certain  portion  of  the  B11  in  early  seral  habitat.         This  would  not  be  a  permanent  opening,  but  if  it  is  successful  it  could  be  the  first  of  more  early  seral   openings  that  would  move  around  in  the  B11  allocation  over  time.    Depending  on  the  harvest  design,   they  might  plant  125  trees  per  acre  to  maintain  minimum  stocking.    The  traditional  thinning  treatment   would  not  achieve  B11  goals  for  vegetation.    They  could  build  in  some  adaptive  management  to  learn   from  unknowns,  like  monitoring  areas  that  are  currently  shaded  to  determine  if  there  are  seed  banks  of   palatable  species.    Another  potential  project  involves  seeding  for  palatable  species  after  harvest  if   necessary.    It  was  suggested  to  look  at  demonstration  areas  on  the  Gifford  Pinchot  National  Forest.     Some  strategic  thinking  about  where  to  leave  skips  such  as  in  some  of  the  moderately  steeper  areas  or   to  screen  along  the  4661  road  was  discussed.    There  will  be  other  plantations  coming  online  in  the   summer  range.    Will  USFS  have  to  wait  until  the  time  is  right  and  the  trees  are  big  enough  to  pay  for   harvest  related  expenses?       Another  tour  discussion  mentioned  that  people  used  to  believe  that  providing  winter  range  was  really   important  for  elk.  More  recently  individuals  understand  that  elk  need  to  put  on  additional  weight  in  the   summer  to  survive  winters.  Long  term  summer  range  areas  could  be  pretty  important  for  elk  survival.         Rick  Larsen  suggested  that  maybe  a  guzzler  should  be  installed  here.    Another  member  mentioned   retaining  some  down  wood  and  snags  and/or  creating  more  snags.    Ground-­‐based  logging  makes  snag   retention  easier  and    could  include  snag  creation  as  part  of  the  contract.     The  road  we  walked  was  closed  in  Increment  2.    It  was  incorrectly  designated  in  GIS  as  only  part  of  the   end  of  the  road  was  decommissioned  and  the  rest  of  it  is  closed  to  make  it  maintenance  Level  1  road.      

Field  Trip  Stop  2  –  Lodge  Pole  Pine  Plantation  -­‐  Road  42  north  of  spur  390                           This  area  was  clearcut  in  1962.    Slash  was  treated  by  windrowing  and  burning  (which  is  no  longer  done   on  the  Mt.  Hood  NF  because  is  scrapes  too  much  of  the  duff  layer  of  the  soil).    It  was  planted  a  few   times  but  the  way  the  harvest  was  done  created  a  “cold  sink”  where  cold  air  pooled  and  the  frost   resulting  from  that  killed  the  seedlings.    The  only  trees  that  could  beat  this  “frost  pocket”  were  lodge   pole  pines  so  they  were  planted  so  the  area  would  meet  minimum  stocking.    The  idea  was  that  the  lodge   pole  would  grow  up  to  create  thermal  cover  and  act  as  a  “nurse  crop”  to  allow  other  species  to  live.    The   stand  is  about  30  acres  and  has  been  pre-­‐commercially  thinned.    There  are  a  few  other  similar   plantations  in  the  area.    The  plantation  is  in  the  C  1  Timber  Emphasis  land  allocation  but  it  is  also   designated  as  critical  habitat  for  the  northern  spotted  owl.         Jim  Roden  pointed  out  that  the  mature  stands  that  border  this  plantation  contain  large  douglas  fir  and   hemlock  (along  with  a  few  other  species),  so  this  area  is  capable  of  growing  those  species.    Those   species  would  be  more  desirable  for  spotted  owl  habitat  than  the  lodge  pole  that  is  currently  occupying   the  site.    The  question  is  what  to  do  with  the  stand  now.    There  is  already  some  dead  lodge  pole  and  it  is   probably  just  a  matter  of  time  before  mountain  pine  beetles  kill  more  trees.    There  are  some  natural   douglas  fir  and  hemlock  trees  growing  up  underneath  the  stand  in  some  of  the  sloped  areas,  but  not  as   much  in  the  flatter  areas.      There  are  a  few  scattered  western  white  pine,  spruce,  western  larch,  and   mountain  hemlock.         Due  to  the  critical  habitat  designation,  treatment  would  have  to  be  designed  to  improve  spotted  owl   habitat.    Average  tree  diameters  of  11  inches  or  more  and  at  least  40%  canopy  cover  meets  the  dispersal   habitat  criteria.    Perhaps  lodge  pole  could  be  sold  as  commercial  firewood  to  pay  for  planting  of  more   douglas  fir,  but  would  have  to  leave  enough  lodge  pole  to  provide  thermal  cover  for  the  planted  trees.          

Field  Trip  Stop  3  –  Forage  Opening  (and  lunch!)  –  Road  4680-­‐140  

  This  area  was  harvested  in  1961.    Like  the  previous  spot,  the  harvest  created  a  “frost  pocket”  but  this   site  was  not  planted  with  lodge  pole.    The  open  area  is  currently  about  9  acres.    In  the  early  1990’s  some   of  these  areas  were  purposefully  treated  in  order  to  provide  good  forage  for  big  game.    Jerry  Holbrook   (who  worked  on  the  district  at  that  time)  said  that  this  area  was  site  prepped  in  1993  or  1994  and   seeded  with  orchard  grass  and  has  had  periodically  applied  fertilizer  (not  for  at  least  past    5  years).    This   particular  “permanent  forage  opening”  seems  to  be  functioning  well.    There  are  some  natural  conifer   seedlings  (lodge  pole  and  other)  establishing  themselves,  so  if  left  with  no  treatment  this  opening  would   probably  eventually  return  to  forest.         Jerry  Holbrook  said  that  he  doesn’t  see  as  many  elk  in  the  whole  Upper  Clackamas  drainage  as  he  used   to.    He  suspects  it’s  a  combination  of  lack  of  early  seral  habitat  and  predation  by  cougars.    These  few   forage  openings  are  really  important.    He  said  that  he  has  heard  anecdotal  evidence  from  a  lot  of   hunters  that  there  are  just  fewer  big  game  animals  in  the  Upper  Clackamas.         There  were  about  30  of  these  “permanent  forage  openings”  in  the  early  1990’s.    Some  of  them  have   been  maintained  with  occasional  fertilization,  but  related  funding  ended.    Many  of  these  openings  are   being  colonized  by  invasive  weeds  and/or  conifers.    ODFW  purchased  fertilizer  in  the  past.    There  was   some  member  discussion  of  native  vs.  non-­‐native  grass  seed.    Native  grass  seed  is  expensive  and  not   available  in  great  quantities.    Jerry  said  that  he  doesn’t  see  much  evidence  that  big  game  like  blue  wild   rye,  but  they  do  eat  some  native  fescue.             Someone  suggested  that  it  might  be  a  good  idea  to  create  snags  along  the  edges  of  the  forage  openings   for  species  like  great  grey  owls.     There  was  discussion  indicating  that  improving  these  forage  openings  could  be  good  volunteer  projects   for  the  Oregon  Hunters  Association  and/or  Rocky  Mountain  Elk  Foundation.    Even  surveying  openings   (taking  photos,  noting  presence  of  invasive  weeds,  documenting  other  vegetation  condition,  etc)  could   help  with  the  Hunter  planning  process.  The  Nature  Conservancy  or  the  Clackamas  Soil  &  Water   Conservation  District  might  be  good  sources  of  information  about  identifying  invasive  species.          

Field  Trip  Stop  4  –  Riparian  Reserve  on  in  Intermittent  Stream  –  Road  42  near  spur  500  

  This  area  was  clearcut  in  1958  and  commercially  thinned  in  2011  by  the  Wolf  timber  sale  (unit  25).     During  the  thinning,  there  was  a  50’  buffer  on  each  side  of  the  intermittent  stream  channel.    Buffers  on   intermittent  (and  non-­‐fish  bearing)  are  usually  30’  to  50’  depending  on  site  conditions  and  proximity  to   listed  species.    These  buffer  areas  serve  to  stop  sediment  from  reaching  the  stream  channel,  provide   habitat  for  terrestrial  species  and  help  species  move  across  the  landscape.    Downstream  of  this   intermittent  channel  is  Pinhead  Creek  containing  bull  trout,  chinook,  coho,  and  steelhead.    Non-­‐fish   streams  have  a  riparian  reserve  of  site  potential  tree  height  on  each  side,  which  is  usually  about  150   feet.    So  in  this  case,  the  inner  50’  of  the  riparian  reserve  vegetation  was  left  untreated  and  the  outer   100’  was  thinned.    After  the  thinning  sale  there  was  a  contract  to  create  snags.     There  was  some  discussion  about  whether  a  model  was  run  for  down  wood  recruitment  for  this   particular  stand.    These  models  are  routinely  run  now  for  planning  projects  but  Tom  Horning  didn’t   know  if  it  was  done  for  this  particular  timber  sale  back  in  2008.    The  goal  of  any  thinning  treatment   within  a  riparian  reserve  is  to  improve  tree  growth  to  provide  larger  wood  for  future  down  wood   recruitment  and  shading  to  benefit  the  riparian  resources.     There  was  some  discussion  about  whether  the  no-­‐touch  buffers  increase  fire  hazard.    I  the  36  Pit  fire  it   was  observed  that  the  fire  seemed  to  “lay  down”  when  it  got  to  thinning  stands,  but  there  were  also   other  factors  like  terrain  as  well.         Jim  Roden  said  that  the  30’-­‐50’  buffers  come  from  consultation  with  National  Marine  Fisheries  Services     rather  than  Northwest  Forest  Plan  standards  and  guidelines  for  riparian  reserves.    He  pointed  out  that  in   the  Wolf  Unit  25,  NMFS  consultation  said  30’  buffer  but  NEPA  said  50’  and  he  is  not  sure  about  the   difference.         There  was  some  discussion  of  the  change  in  water  and  snowmelt  patterns  that  can  result  from  thinning   and  other  timber  harvest.    Jim  Roden  said  you  usually  have  to  do  a  lot  of  treatments  (harvesting)  to  have   a  measurable  effect  on  water  quality.    A  hydrologist  will  look  at  the  potential  for  rain-­‐on-­‐snow  events  on   a  watershed  wide  level.    This  is  not  nearly  as  much  concern  today  as  it  was  a  few  decades  ago.     Comments  were  made  that  evidence  of  sediment  transport  in  thinning  areas  (like  gullies,  ditches,  etc)  is   rarely  seen.    Jim  Roden  said  that  the  Upper  Clackamas  is  young  geology  and  water  infiltrates  quickly.    It   is  also  much  drier  in  general,  with  fewer  year-­‐around  streams.        

Field  Trip  Stop  5  –  Forage  Opening  and  Management  of  Invasive  Weed  Species  –  Road  4670    

  This  area  was  clearcut  in  1979.    It  is  a  larger  area  than  it  appears  because  there  are  patches  of  tall   conifers  throughout.    It  gets  quite  a  lot  of  big  game  use  in  late  winter  and  early  spring  as  it  is  not  far   upslope  of  the  Big  Bottom  area.    There  is  quite  a  lot  of  scotch  broom  and  invasive  species  of  daisy   encroaching  on  some  areas  of  this  forage  opening.    In  addition  to  treating  the  invasives,  this  opening   could  benefit  from  some  tree  removal.    Scouler  willow  here  shows  evidence  of  heavy  browse.    Some   willow  could  be  cut  to  promote  re-­‐sprouting  closer  to  the  ground.    Perhaps  some  additional  palatable   species  could  be  introduced.    The  fire  crew  did  some  scotch  broom  pulling  is  this  area  about  7  or  8  years   ago.    It  is  hard  to  eliminate.      Someone  mentioned  that  now  the  thought  it  that  it  is  just  better  to  cut  the   Scotch  broom  before  it  goes  to  seed  and  just  leave  it  on  site  since  soil  disturbance  is  not  a  good  idea.     The  USFS  is  now  allowed  to  spray  invasives.     This  area  is  designated  as  critical  habitat  but  improving  the  forage  opening  wouldn’t  degrade  existing   habitat  (because  it  is  not  currently  suitable).    It  was  asked  if  there  is  different  direction  within  critical   habitat  for  spraying  weeds  and  Jeff  said  that  he  wasn’t  aware  of  any  difference.    The  topic  of  lack  of   early  seral  habitat  came  up  again  and  the  importance  of  these  openings  not  only  for  big  game  but  also   for  other  species  dependent  on  early  seral  habitat  (some  migratory  songbirds,  for  example).       Field  Trip  Stop  6  –  36  Pit  Fire  –  New  Parking  Area  Along  Highway  224                           There  was  enough  time  for  a  brief  stop  along  the  highway  where  Jackie  Groce  talked  about  the  36  Pit   Fire  –  how  it  started,  how  it  progressed,  etc.    The  patchy  way  that  it  burned  was  quite  evident  visually   from  this  vantage  point.    Forests  on  the  west  side  of  Mt.  Hood  do  burn  when  the  conditions  are  right!