Gifford Pinchot National Forest
Huckleberry Management Strategy
Compiled by Jessica Hudec*, USFS Ecologist Updated January 2018
*Corresponding author. Telephone: 509-395-3403, email: [email protected]
2
Gifford Pinchot National Forest Huckleberry Management Strategy
Preface This strategy was prepared with funds from a Weyerhaeuser Family Foundation grant awarded to the Pinchot Partners collaborative group. Contributors include Amy Boyd (Cowlitz Indian Tribe); Tracy Calizon (USFS, Community Engagement Staff Officer); Cheryl Friesen (USFS, Science Liaison); Doug Glavich (USFS, Botanist); Jessica Hudec (USFS, Ecologist); Rick McClure (Headwaters Historic Services and USFS, retired); Dave Olson (USFS, Restoration and Stewardship Staff Officer); Nathan Reynolds (Cowlitz Indian Tribe); Sue Ripp (USFS, Public Affairs Officer); Jamie Tolfree (Pinchot Partners, Collaborative Group Coordinator). Information was compiled into this document by Jessica Hudec.
The initial, overarching goal of this project, as stated in the grant application, was “to develop a multi-year, self-sustaining huckleberry habitat restoration program on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest that will lead to increased huckleberry production and improvement to local forest community economies.” This document presents a variety of information about huckleberry ecology and management and seeks to determine is such a self-sustaining huckleberry management program is possible and feasible. We introduce huckleberry ecology and traditional cultural uses, suggest priority locations for huckleberry management based on ecological, practical, and sociocultural suitability, describe potential techniques to expand and improve quality of huckleberry habitat, and use a case study to examine economic feasibility of huckleberry management. Updates will be made to this document as new information is acquired and ideas are developed.
Introduction to huckleberry ecology Twelve different species of huckleberries exist on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Different huckleberry species share many common characteristics and provide a food source for humans and wildlife. This document focuses specifically on the management of big huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum), especially prized for its taste and productivity. Further mention of huckleberries in this document refers to big huckleberry, unless otherwise noted. Friesen (2016) completed a report on the Ecology and Management of Big Huckleberry as part of this project. Highlights from her report are included throughout this strategy document, and a complete copy of the report with a comprehensive huckleberry reference list is included as Appendix A.
Habitat Huckleberry shrubs are found in open and forested habitats between approximately 3,000 and 5,400 feet elevation throughout the Pacific Northwest (Yang 2008). Huckleberry shrubs achieve greatest frequency and coverage in open, early seral stands, and plants are generally most productive on sites that experienced disturbance about 50 years prior (Martin 1979). Huckleberry shrubs gradually decrease in dominance and fruiting diminishes as canopy cover closes (Douglas 1970, Lotan et al. 1981, Minore 1972). In late seral stands, huckleberry shrubs can grow beneath a partially closed forest canopy or in sunny openings (French 1999, Haeussler et al. 1990).
Life history Huckleberry shrubs can reproduce through seed or, more commonly, vegetatively from adventitious buds on rhizomes (Ingersol and Wilson 1990; Stark 1989) and the root crown (Agee 1994). Reproduction through seed is rare, and populations are usually maintained through expansion by vegetative clones that sprout from rhizomes. Despite the dominance of expansion via cloning, highly mobile animals that feed on huckleberries play an important role in facilitating long distance seed dispersal and high levels of
3
gene flow. These dispersal agents include coyotes, cedar waxwings, varied thrushes, Townsend’s solitaires, white-crowned sparrows, black bears, and golden-mantled ground squirrels, among others.
Seedlings and clonal shoots begin flowering and fruiting three to five years after establishment (Minore et al. 1979, Barney 1999). Flowers are insect pollinated and fruit set is rarely limited by inadequate pollination (Stephenson 1981, Niesenbaum 1993). Huckleberry fruit yields are correlated with aspect, elevation, slope, and distance east or west of the Cascade Crest (Hunn and Norton 1984, Martin 1979). Greater berry production has also been found to occur on soils high in organic matter (Stark and Baker 1992). Finally, huckleberry fruit production is annually affected by snow pack duration (Minore 1972, Minore and Dubrasich 1978), snow depth (Minore and Dubrasich 1978, Martin 1979), seasonal drought (Stark and Baker 1992), and weather during critical phases of pollination and fruit development (Shaffer 1971). Seasonal weather may obscure the effects of topography and soils on berry production in any given year (Minore and Dubaisech 1978). Overall, huckleberries have greatest potential on cool, mesic sites with minimal overstory (Dahlgreen 1984) where snow pack delays flower formation and protects shrubs from frosts that can be fatal in open areas on xeric aspects (Minore and Smart 1975).
Traditional cultural use Huckleberries are a sacred food among many Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest, and huckleberry gathering serves as a focal point for renewing kinship and cross-tribal social ties (Fisher 2002, Knudson 1980). In the past, each year many Sahaptin-speaking Native Americans would travel from settlements along the Columbia River to the area now known as Indian Heaven Wilderness to harvest huckleberries from mid-August through October (Hunn 1990). Huckleberries remain one of the most important ceremonial foods to tribal people, and harvest in specific areas is a treasured tradition. Yakama Nation still heralds the beginning of huckleberry harvest season each year with a ceremony at their longhouse in the Sawtooth Berryfields, near Indian Heaven Wilderness.
Treaties of 1854 and 1855 preserved the rights of members of the Medicine Creek Treaty tribes (Puyallup, Nisqually, Steilacoom, and Squaxin Island) and the Yakama Nation to gather roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands. The Handshake Agreement of 1932 between Yakama Indian Chief William Yallup and Gifford Pinchot National Forest Supervisor J.R. Bruckart set aside areas east of Forest Road 24 in the Sawtooth Berryfields for exclusive berry-picking use by Native Americans in recognition of the area’s traditional cultural value. Sawtooth has become increasingly important to Native Americans, including Yakama Nation, as other traditional huckleberry fields have been lost to forest succession (Fisher 1997).
Current conditions Historic huckleberry fields in the Pacific Northwest originated from uncontrolled wildfires and were subsequently maintained by Native American burning. Native Americans traditionally set fires in autumn, after berry harvest, to reduce invasion of shrubs and trees (Boyd 1999). Euro-American settlement and fire exclusion efforts of the 20th century eliminated traditional cultural burning practices and altered associated vegetation composition on the landscape.
Current huckleberry fields can predominantly be linked to one of two sources: 1) late 19th and
early 20th century wildfires that were managed and maintained for huckleberries and/or have naturally
low tree productivity; or 2) clearcuts, largely from 1970s and 1980s, which have promoted huckleberry
cover in more recent history. Today, vegetation management, including commercial and non-
commercial timber harvest, continues to create opportunities for huckleberry establishment, expansion,
and productivity (by intention or by chance); however, these new sites cannot replace sacred, traditional
harvest areas that have been lost to forest succession by fire exclusion. Efforts are ongoing to preserve
4
some notable historic harvest areas, but the rate of huckleberry habitat creation or maintenance is not
commensurate with the rate of loss.
Current cover and productivity of huckleberries on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest relative
to historic levels is difficult to measure; nonetheless, personal accounts from tribal pickers and members
of the public suggest a general decline in huckleberry coverage and productivity in recent decades.
Aerial photos and forest inventory data substantiate these personal accounts. Fire exclusion, including
the loss of Native American burning, and subsequent succession to closed canopy forest is generally
accepted as the primary cause of habitat reduction. Fisher (1996) mentioned that berry patches in
Klickitat County, where Yakama Nation members traditionally pick, had shrunk by about 100 acres per
year at the time of research. Twin Buttes picking area, which covered over 12,000 acres in 1920, had
been reduced to a third of that size and was predicted to be completely gone by year 2040 (Fisher
1996).
Present-day tribal members note the need for berry picking areas that are accessible to elders. Nearly one quarter of traditional huckleberry fields that are still in production today are located in designated Wilderness areas, which are difficult to reach. Additional huckleberry picking sites exist in roadless areas, which are also typically difficult to reach. Ongoing access and travel management planning, coupled with reduced budgets for road maintenance, has resulted in many National Forest roads becoming obliterated, closed, or simply too rough to drive, thus further restricting access to huckleberry fields for tribal elders.
Reduction in productive huckleberry habitat and access limitations where habitat does exist have combined with a growing commercial market, general human population growth, and increased forest visitor use to increase competition for huckleberries and conflicts among forest users. Resource depletion and increased conflict has negatively impacted native people’s experience of the ceremonial huckleberry harvest (Lecompte-Mastenbrook 2011).
Additional threats to huckleberries include climate change, reduction in native bee populations, and non-native insects including spotted wing drosophila (Murray et al. 2017).
Management locations Assessment of potential locations to manage for huckleberry maintenance or enhancement includes considerations for ecological, practical, and sociocultural suitability. Criteria for each measure of suitability are discussed below. Areas determined suitable through these criteria represent the most favorable areas to implement targeted huckleberry management projects across an extensive area. Results do not include every area where huckleberries may exist, nor do they represent an exhaustive list of areas that may be considered for treatment. Additional maps and process notes are included in Appendix B.
Ecological suitability Ecological suitability for huckleberries is based on geologic, topographic, and environmental factors. The vast majority of huckleberry habitat on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest falls within the Pacific silver fir and mountain hemlock vegetation zones (fig. 1). Vegetation zone was the primary stratifying factor used to determine ecological suitability. Ecological suitability can potentially be further refined by considering not only where huckleberries may exist but also where they will be most competitive. For example, studies suggest huckleberries may be more competitive on north aspects than on south aspects because more persistent snowpack on north aspects can protect shrubs and flowers from early season frost. Moreover, huckleberry expansion is less likely to be challenged by beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax), a key competitor, on north aspects because beargrass prefers south aspects (Higgins et al. 2004).
5
Small amounts of canopy cover (up to 30%) may also protect huckleberries from environmental hazards associated with exposure. Field work completed by Cowlitz Indian Tribe in summer 2017 sought to identify common characteristics of sites that support huckleberries. A preliminary report of field validation findings is included as Appendix C. Additional analysis of initial findings will occur in 2018, after which, criteria for ecological suitability will be refined, the field work report will be revised, and this document will be finalized.
Practical suitability Access Access is a consideration for forest management activities, especially mechanized activities, and where huckleberry enhancement for human use is targeted. Access is most easily achieved on forest stands within 150 feet of a road and with slopes less than 20% (figs. B.2, B.3, B.4). Huckleberry enhancement for wildlife forage was not included as part of the suitability assessment but may occur farther from roads or behind gated roads to reduce competition and contact with humans. Age Huckleberry fields created or maintained in the past 20 years are not likely priorities for huckleberry management. Forest stands over 120 years old are also unlikely candidates for management because social license limits the ability to remove old trees. Furthermore, huckleberry cover in old forest stands is often much reduced or excluded, and huckleberry shrubs would take a long time to expand and recover post-management. Thus, the list of stands suitable for management was further refined to include only stands between age 20 and 120 (fig. B.5). Huckleberry fields that originated following early 20th century fires are currently 100-115 years old and are therefore included in this selection. Land management regulations Gifford Pinchot National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP; 1990), as amended by the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (NWFP ROD; 1994) and the Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (2011) guide management actions on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Desired conditions and standards and guidelines from these planning documents help determine where huckleberry management is possible and probable from a regulatory standpoint. Fig. 2 symbolizes the forest by treatment potential based on management allocation.
NWFP Designations
Congressional Withdrawn Areas (CWA) - No active huckleberry management. Designation includes Wildernesses, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Monuments. Timber harvest is prohibited. Huckleberry enhancement may occur following wildfire events.
Riparian Reserves- No active huckleberry management. Riparian-dependent species (not huckleberries) receive primary emphasis in areas designated as riparian reserves. Riparian-dependent species typically prefer a more closed-canopy condition.
Late Successional Reserves (LSR) and Managed Late Successional Areas (MLSA) - Low likelihood of active huckleberry management in some LRMP categories (Table 1). The objective of areas designated as LSR or MLSA is to protect and enhance conditions of late successional and old-growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species, including the northern spotted owl. As such, directed huckleberry enhancement work that aims to minimize canopy cover is not likely to occur within LSRs or MLSAs for any LRMP category. Nevertheless, small pockets and openings created in the process of managing
6
LSRs for structural complexity, species diversity, and understory development may incidentally enhance huckleberry habitat.
Administratively Withdrawn Areas (AWA) - Low to high likelihood of active huckleberry management depending on LRMP category (Table 1). Management emphasis precludes scheduled timber harvest, but huckleberry enhancement may be considered.
Adaptive Management Areas (AMA) - Low to moderate likelihood of active huckleberry management depending on LRMP category (Table 1). NWFP objective for AMAs is to develop and test new management approaches to integrate and achieve ecological and economic health and other social objectives. Emphasis of the Cispus AMA on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest is the development and testing of innovative approaches at stand, landscape, and watershed level to integrate timber production and maintenance of late-successional forests, healthy riparian zones, and high quality recreational values. Additional requirements accompany project development and implementation in AMAs; therefore no LRMP categories were ranked more than moderately likely to have active huckleberry management.
Matrix - High likelihood of active huckleberry management in some LRMP categories (Table 1). Matrix lands include all those not categorized into other designations. Desired conditions and regulations are guided by the LRMP category.
LRMP Categories
Administrative Sites - Low likelihood of active huckleberry management. Trees may be removed to enhance recreation and allow facility expansion, but small footprint area of administrative sites and distinct management objectives for these sites make active huckleberry management unlikely.
Utility Sites and Corridors - Low likelihood of active huckleberry management. Timber harvest is allowed, but small footprint area and distinct management objectives for these sites makes active huckleberry management unlikely.
Special Interest - Low likelihood of active huckleberry management in LSR and MLSA, moderate likelihood in AMA, and high likelihood in AWA where berryfields are a potential feature of special interest.
Developed Recreation - Low likelihood of active huckleberry management. Developed recreation sites may exist near berryfields, but include facilities and developments rather than the berryfields themselves. Trees may be removed to enhance views or recreation, but distinct management objectives for these sites makes active huckleberry management unlikely.
Unroaded Recreation without Timber Harvest - Low likelihood of active huckleberry management in LSR or LSRA, moderate likelihood in AWA or AMA. Trees may be removed to enhance views or recreation.
Roaded Recreation without Timber Harvest - Low likelihood of active huckleberry management in LSR or LSRA, moderate likelihood in AWA or AMA. Trees may be removed to enhance views or recreation.
Roaded Recreation with Timber Harvest - Moderate likelihood of active huckleberry management in AMA, high likelihood in Matrix. These lands accommodate dispersed recreation including berry picking.
Research Natural Area - Active huckleberry management will not occur. Tree cutting only permitted where hazard exists to life or property.
Wildlife Special - Low likelihood of active huckleberry management in LSR, LSRA, or AWA. Individual trees or groups of trees may be cut to improve wildlife habitat, but alteration of the
7
vegetative character of the area is not permitted. Recreational activities that entail high densities of users will not be encouraged.
Visual Emphasis - Low likelihood of active huckleberry management in LSR or LSRA, moderate likelihood in AMA, and high likelihood in matrix. Timber harvest permitted, though management activities should be visually insubordinate to the natural landscape or not evident.
Mountain Goat - Low likelihood of active huckleberry management in LSR, LSRA, AMA, and Matrix. Timber harvest is permitted to improve mountain goat habitat. Mountain goats may feed on huckleberries where they exist in their summer range, but desirable sites for huckleberry enhancement are not likely to overlap with mountain goat summer range. Where timber harvest does occur to improve mountain goat habitat, incidental creation or improvement of huckleberry habitat may occur.
Deer and Elk Winter Range - Moderate likelihood of active huckleberry management in AMA, high likelihood in Matrix. Timber harvest permitted. Deer and elk directly benefit from enhancement of huckleberries and other early seral forest species; however, winter range typically occurs below elevations where huckleberry is common.
Experimental Forest- No active huckleberry management with be initiated by the National Forest within the Experimental Forest.
General Late Successional Reserve - Low likelihood of active huckleberry management in LSR or LSRA. Objectives focus on protecting and enhancing conditions of late successional and old growth forest ecosystems. Incidental huckleberry enhancement may occur where small pockets and openings are created in the process of managing LSRs for structural complexity, species diversity, and understory development.
General Forest - Moderate likelihood of active huckleberry management in AMA, high likelihood in Matrix. Timber harvest permitted and recreational activities compatible with commodity management, including berry picking, are encouraged.
Wild and Scenic Rivers – No active huckleberry management will occur in wild and scenic river corridors. Tree removal may be allowed in some areas, particularly in lands categorized as “recreational rivers”, but management objectives generally do not include reference to huckleberry enhancement.
Sociocultural suitability Traditional ecological knowledge and historic picking areas Involvement of local tribes is essential to this assessment process and the development of a huckleberry restoration strategy, given the cultural and historical importance of huckleberries to native peoples. We rely on traditional ecological knowledge to identify areas that are culturally suited to huckleberry habitat restoration. Initial outreach and consultation with seven local tribes was completed to determine degree of interest and desired level of participation from each tribe and to solicit any concerns or recommendations. Most tribes expressed interest in huckleberry restoration in general, though degree of interest in this project varied. A full report of the initial phase of notification, contacts, and consultation was completed by Rick McClure, Headwaters Historical Services, and is included as Appendix D.
Existing information on traditional ecological knowledge and historic picking areas includes oral histories, historic maps, ethnographic literature specific to traditional huckleberry gathering areas, and comments from previous consultation on huckleberry management projects on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Historic huckleberry picking areas on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest are widespread (fig. 3). Archaeological evidence indicates historic use in the Sawtooth Berryfields, Indian Heaven Wilderness, subalpine areas surrounding Mt. Adams, Big Huckleberry Mountain, Little
8
Huckleberry Mountain, Ekhart Point, Observation Peak, Silver Star/Bluff Mountain, headwaters of the Lewis River, Summit Prairie, Table Mountain, Spencer Butte, Hamilton Buttes, Davis Mountain, Whalehead Ridge, Tatoosh Ridge, Prairie Mountain, Burley Mountain-Pole Patch, and Coal Creek Mountain. Preliminary inventory of historical/traditional huckleberry gathering areas includes at least 45 separate sites. Some areas are no longer in use, possibly due to loss of productivity, and many sites likely qualify as Traditional Cultural Properties under the criteria for the National Register of Historic Places. Sensitivity of this information restricts sharing of specific culturally valuable site locations. However, known locations will be considered in the process of site prioritization, and tribes will have an opportunity to review this document and provide feedback before the strategy is finalized. Public interest Members of the public interested in huckleberry harvest and management may include recreational, subsistence, and commercial pickers. For recreational and subsistence pickers, the experience of enjoying nature while gathering wild food is the primary appeal, similar to that of hunting and fishing. For commercial pickers, harvest and trade in huckleberries is a growing enterprise.
Public meetings were held in Packwood, WA, and Battleground, WA, to share information about this project and solicit feedback from diverse user groups. A third public meeting is being planned on the south end of Gifford Pinchot National Forest, likely in Stevenson, WA, or Trout Lake, WA. Specific site recommendations by individuals who offer feedback at public meetings will be considered in the prioritization process.
Priority treatment locations Pacific silver fir and mountain hemlock vegetation zones were further stratified by practical suitability factors (access, age, management regulations) described above to develop high and moderate likelihood treatment locations (fig. 4). Not surprisingly, many of the areas modeled as most likely candidates for enhancement align with historic huckleberry picking locations considered for sociocultural suitability (fig. 3), including Burley Mountain/Pole Patch and surrounding areas, Sawtooth Berryfields and surrounding areas, Summit Prairie, Hamilton Buttes, Silver Star Mountain, and Eckhart Point. Fig. 5 highlights these areas along with other clusters of high and moderate likelihood treatment stands: west of Glacier View Wilderness (Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest); Cougar Gap; south of Mount St. Helens, adjacent to the Monument boundary; along FR 25 around Elk Pass; along FR 29 around Langille Peak and McCoy Creek; Potato Hill and Midway Meadows; along FR 88 from the junction with FR 8851 to the junction with FR 90; Paradise Hills; northeast of the Big Lava Bed near the junction of FRs 60 and 66; and Lookout Mountain. Current and potential huckleberry habitat status and management likelihood of these areas was further assessed through field validation by Cowlitz Indian Tribe in summer of 2017 (Appendix C). Field validation sought to verify accuracy of GIS layers used to determine ecological suitability and identified common characteristics of sites that support huckleberries. This information, along with considerations for sociocultural suitability will be incorporated into an updated habitat and treatment suitability assessment and recommended list of huckleberry treatment areas in 2018.
Management implementation Potential huckleberry management techniques The following information on management techniques is summarized, in part, from the Mt. Hood National Forest Huckleberry Management Plan for the Zigzag Ranger District (2000).
Re-establishing, maintaining, and enhancing huckleberry fields and huckleberry fruit production can be accomplished in various ways. Tree encroachment is perceived to be the primary reason for reduction in huckleberry cover and productivity. Elimination of tree encroachment may not be feasible,
9
but controlling structure, composition, and distribution of trees on a site is possible with methods such as thinning, girdling, pruning, and burning. Trees can be removed by commercial timber sale if trees are of sufficient size and volume.
Improved huckleberry production is best thought of as a value-added product if using timber sales to
facilitate huckleberry enhancement. The added value of huckleberry enhancement includes facilitation
of harvest for commercial and personal use and fulfillment of treaty/trust responsibilities. Complications
associated with timber sales include regeneration stocking level requirements that limit the longevity of
open canopy conditions, activity slash that may impede the development of huckleberry shrubs, slash
disposal requirements that may result in short-term damage to huckleberry shrubs, and equipment
impacts on vegetation and soils. Stands in some land management allocations must meet minimum
stocking standards following harvest; therefore, regeneration planting that negates the purpose of tree
removal for huckleberry enhancement could be required. For huckleberry enhancement to be effective
in these areas, regeneration would need to be monitored and maintained at low levels to minimize
competition with huckleberry shrubs. Slash generated could impede huckleberry shrub development,
but slash disposal carries additional considerations: direct fire effects to soils and huckleberry shrubs, air
quality, and impacts to wildlife and recreation. Finally, mechanical equipment can damage residual
huckleberry shrubs and compact soils.
Non-commercial special forest product sales (e.g., boughs, posts and poles, firewood) or service contracts for thinning and pruning are possible management techniques to enhance huckleberries where small-diameter or low-value trees dominate. Non-commercial sales are typically small in scale and result in relatively little damage to resources compared to commercial sales.
Prescribed fire can be applied to kill thin-barked trees, like Pacific silver fir, through direct impacts to the cambium. Low to moderate intensity fire prunes huckleberry shrubs by killing existing branches and encouraging the development of new, more vigorous sprouts from rhizomes. Furthermore, fire increases some soil nutrients, which may favor new plant establishment and growth. Berry production may be reduced for 10-20 years following fire, depending on fire intensity, but higher productivity is expected compared to pre-treatment conditions after the initial lag time. Air quality concerns may constrain timing and limit the amount of prescribed burning permissible. Further complicating prescribed burning, the window of time when fuels are easily burned is quite limited in vegetation types that support huckleberries, and that window of time often coincides with burning of large wildfires. Large wildfires compound air quality concerns and limit resource availability for prescribed burning.
Economically, prescribed burning tends to be cheaper than mechanical or other types of manual treatment. However, existing fuel loads and tree retention objectives can necessitate pre-treatment before burning, which increases cost. Fine-scale objectives for tree, snag, and woody debris retention may be easier to meet using harvest techniques than using prescribed fire.
Research results Research on huckleberry management is limited. Several studies took place in the 1970s, including multiple experiments on the Gifford Pinchot and Mt. Hood National Forests by Don Minore, but results were highly variable and rarely conclusive. A resurgence of interest in huckleberry management stimulated more research and some targeted huckleberry restoration treatments in the 1990s and early 2000s, but little documentation exists of huckleberry treatment effectiveness. Friesen (2016, Appendix A) summarized results from a selection of research trials. See Appendix A for a comprehensive list of research findings. Highlights include
Cured slash was required for effective burning of huckleberry shrubs.
10
Huckleberry plants sprout vigorously after disturbance, but fruit production is delayed by 3-10 years.
Bulldozing is an effective tool for slash creation where equipment is permitted and production delay of 5 years or more is acceptable.
Beargrass is a major competitor to huckleberries; herbicides, burning, and grazing are not effective means of control for beargrass.
Heat from moderate to high intensity fires can penetrate soil and affect the ability of huckleberry stems to sprout from rhizomes.
Huckleberry plants may benefit from the protection of a sparse canopy, such as that provided by dead snags after a wildfire; therefore, management should consider leaving individual stems or groups of trees up to a residual canopy cover of 30-50%.
Local projects Literature indicates huckleberry research projects in the Pacific Northwest began in the 1960s and 1970s. Records suggest management-initiated projects that specifically targeted huckleberry enhancement gained traction in the 1990s, but local knowledge affirms that various small-scale efforts to maintain the Sawtooth berry fields occurred prior to the 1990s as well. Incidental improvement of huckleberries was common in conjunction with clearcutting across Gifford Pinchot National Forest in the 1970s and 1980s. Early huckleberry enhancement and maintenance projects on Gifford Pinchot and Mt. Hood National Forests were relatively small in scale and typically involved treatments like lop and scatter, pile burning, and tree girdling. Several larger scale huckleberry enhancement-focused projects have occurred over the past decade in the Pacific Northwest, including commercial harvests, non-commercial treatments, and prescribed burning in popular berryfields of Gifford Pinchot National Forest: Mowich (Environmental Assessment 2006), Sawtooth (Environmental Assessment 2009), and Pole Patch (Environmental Assessment 2013). A database of recent treatments in Western Washington and Northwest Oregon was created as part of this project. Treatment locations are compiled in figs. 6 and 7. Selected treatment information is included as a table in Appendix E.
Friesen (2016, Appendix A) provides a summary of management demonstrations in Western Washington and Northwest Oregon, including information on site description, treatment, monitoring, and results. Treatments have occurred primarily in fire-regenerated stands where huckleberry shrubs were already present. Dominant tree species included western hemlock, Pacific silver fir, and lodgepole pine. Treatments included commercial and non-commercial thinning and prescribed burning. Information on monitoring and treatment results is relatively scarce, but noteworthy observations include
Underburning was prescribed on several sites but rarely occurred. Lack of suitable burn conditions was the most commonly cited reason that burning did not occur. This lack of suitability could include insufficient fuel loadings to carry fire, a short period of time when fuels are dry enough to burn, and conflicts with wildfire management and air quality.
Beargrass tends to outcompete huckleberry on restoration sites where both understory species are present.
Sites logged over snow in one area showed a “flush” in berry production the first season following harvest while huckleberries on sites that were logged with no snow took several years to recover.
Wind concerns and visual objectives were cited as limiting factors to the size of openings created in treatments.
11
Economic considerations Potential treatment locations and restoration techniques have been identified; however, one factor of suitability remains: economics. Huckleberry enhancement projects can be complicated to finance because projects typically involve a combination of management activities with net gain and management activities with net loss of funds. Timber sales and stewardship sales can be used to facilitate huckleberry enhancement; however, funding rules prohibit a self-sustaining huckleberry management program if timber sales are involved. Tables 2a and 2b provide a summary of how funds can be used and where harvest-generated funds go when collected.
Some revenue is generated for the special forests products program through the sale of commercial huckleberry permits (Table 3) and other non-timber forest products, but connecting those monies to future enhancement work can be difficult. Virtually all revenue generated from permit sales is needed to administer and enforce the commercial permit and free huckleberry collection program. The sale of other non-timber forest products, including boughs, also adds to the special forest products fund. Gifford Pinchot National Forest has used special forest products program monies, along with other funding sources, to finance the planning and some of the implementation work included in recent Sawtooth and Pole Patch huckleberry enhancement projects. Sawtooth and Pole Patch projects provide examples of using a combination of funds to finance huckleberry enhancement project planning and of using different types of timber sales and stewardship contracts to generate revenue and accomplish planned restoration work.
Table 4 shows summary cost and revenue numbers from the Pole Patch project. At a glance, revenue generated appears to have offset the cost of planning and implementation. However, these numbers may not be entirely accurate as they do not capture the more complex, finer details of funding. An assessment of trickle down effects to local communities was not completed with the Pole Patch project.
In short, the lack of a single, consistent and sufficient funding source for huckleberry enhancement restricts the feasibility of a stand-alone huckleberry management program. Thus, we conclude that an integrated approach to vegetation management that includes huckleberry enhancement as a value-added product is likely to be the most sustainable and economically viable option.
Conclusions This strategy contributes to the development of a multi-year huckleberry management program on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest by introducing huckleberry ecology and traditional cultural uses, suggesting priority locations for management based on ecological, practical, and sociocultural suitability, describing potential techniques to expand and improve quality of huckleberry habitat based on research and local projects, and examining economic feasibility of huckleberry management.
Generally speaking, a reduction in overstory shading paired with some level of understory disturbance is likely to result in improved huckleberry cover and productivity. Overstory tree removal may be the preferred option where trees are of commercial size and current huckleberry cover is relatively high. Tree removal reduces shading and is likely to increase berry production. Mechanical surface disturbance or prescribed burning may be a preferred option where current huckleberry cover and/or productivity is low or trees are of non-commercial size. Disturbance increases area available for huckleberry establishment and stimulate shoot development from existing rhizomes. Land managers should consider developing and maintaining both transitory and more permanent huckleberry fields when prescribing treatments. Transitory fields would likely be relatively small (<100 acres) and may result incidentally from timber harvest and plantation maintenance that occurs as part of the existing vegetation management program on Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
12
Transitory fields augment the production of permanent fields, provide linkages across the landscape for plants and animals, and disperse human use. Stands managed for huckleberry enhancement may have lower residual stocking following treatment than standard plantations, but retention of tree overstory and eventual return to forest condition would be expected. In contrast, permanent fields would be larger in size (>100 acres) and persist for multiple decades. Some movement in space and time would be expected but movement would occur at a much slower rate than in transitory fields. Management of permanent fields would target open conditions favorable to huckleberries, but a range of stand conditions are possible within large patches. Restoration to permanent berry fields is the recommended focus for traditional cultural huckleberry picking sites.
A strategic approach to including huckleberry enhancement in vegetation management planning begins by incorporating potential for huckleberry enhancement as a weighted prioritization factor for planning areas considered in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest 10-year vegetation management plan. Currently, out-year vegetation management planning areas are chosen based on silvicultural considerations, forest health and habitat concerns, and a collection of other factors. Outputs from this report, including suitability maps and recommended treatment locations, could be included with those factors. Pre-identified priority huckleberry enhancement locations would help resource managers select planning areas with high huckleberry enhancement potential. Pre-identified priority treatment areas would also increase the likelihood that huckleberry enhancement would be addressed in project design and planning (i.e. NEPA analysis). Finally, special forest products funds could leverage timber management funds during planning and implementation to encourage and facilitate huckleberry enhancement work.
Pinchot Partners worked with Cascade Forest Conservancy and the Forest Service to develop and implement a treatment effectiveness monitoring plan. A report on initial finding from monitoring work in summer of 2017 is included as Appendix F. Data on treatment effectiveness and use over time can help assess direct and indirect benefits of huckleberry enhancement by tracking productivity and availability along with permit sales and national visitor use reports. Direct benefits could include habitat expansion for dependent wildlife species, revenue generated from commercial timber sales, continuation of traditional cultural use, and emotional and spiritual benefits to tribal and recreational pickers. Indirect benefits could include local job creation, revenue from tourism in local communities, and favorable relationships with local tribes and forest users. Finally, data collected through treatment effectiveness monitoring and field validation work that associates huckleberry presence and productivity with specific site factors will help fill identified knowledge gaps.
This strategy will be updated as new information becomes available. Follow-up work includes further analysis of field validation data collected in summer 2017 and associated revision to the habitat and treatment suitability assessment. Findings will be vetted with interested tribal contacts, as explained above, and tribal recommendations will be incorporated into an updated list of prioritized treatment locations. Public outreach will be ongoing and a final public meetings to specifically solicit feedback and recommendations on this strategy will occur in 2018. Finally, products will be shared with a broad audience across the Pacific Northwest to encourage and provide a framework for the strategic management of culturally important foods like huckleberries.
References See Ecology and Management of Big Huckleberry Bibliography, Appendix A, page 38.
13
Table 1. Likelihood of huckleberry management based on Northwest Forest Plan and Land and Resource
Management Plan designations.
NWFP Land Use Allocation
LSR MLSA AWA AMA Matrix
LRM
P M
anag
em
en
t A
rea
Cat
ego
ry
Administrative Sites Low Low Low N/A N/A
Developed Recreation Low Low Low Low N/A
Research Natural Areas N/A N/A None N/A N/A
Roaded Recreation without Timber Harvest
Low Low Mod Mod N/A
Special Interest Low Low High Mod N/A
Unroaded Recreation without timber harvest
Low Low Mod Mod N/A
Utility sites and Corridors
Low Low Low N/A N/A
Wildlife Special Low Low Low N/A N/A
Experimental Forest None None N/A N/A N/A
General Late Successional Reserve
Low Low N/A N/A N/A
Mountain Goat Low Low N/A Low Low
Visual Emphasis Low Low N/A Mod High
Deer and Elk Winter Range
N/A N/A N/A Mod High
General Forest N/A N/A N/A Mod High
Roaded Recreation with Timber Harvest
N/A N/A N/A Mod High
Wild and Scenic Rivers None None None None None
14
Table 2a. Funding options for vegetation management projects
Table 2b. Direction of funds associated with timber sales or integrated resource timber contract
stewardship sales.
Activity (Cost) Funding options
Planning Special Forest Products or timber (non-timber funding source required if not productive forest)
Sale prep and administration Timber
Receipts (Revenue source) Revenue destination
From timber sales To trust funds, counties, and the Treasury
From stewardship sales To trust funds and retained receipts (not to additional planning)
15
Table 3. Huckleberry permit sales since 2005. Note: 2015 was a particularly early year for huckleberry ripening. Permit sales did not begin until mid-August after much of the huckleberry production was already complete, which negatively impacted number of permits sold and associated revenue. Fruiting was also observed to be due, at least in part, to a record low snow pack and warm, dry spring.
Year Permits Revenue
2016 Unknown $65,991
2015 656 $31,890
2014 1198 $73,155
2013 1119 $70,656
2012 1248 $75,564
2011 1326 $70,730
2010 741 $41,225
2009 955 $50,302
2008 834 $35,332
2007 502 $20,080
2006 359 $14,330
2005 180 $9,965
16
Table 4. Costs and revenue associated with the Pole Patch Huckleberry Enhancement Project. Planning was financed with special forest products funds and includes resource specialists’ input to the Environmental Assessment and consultation with regulatory agencies. Implementation was financed with timber management funds and includes sale layout, advertisement, and administration (based on 2016 cost values). Revenue generated is from the value of the timber itself according to most current
timber sale accounting reports and represents the value of the forest product available to do restoration work.
Pole Patch Huckleberry Enhancement Project
Cost Revenue
Planning $302,300
Implementation- Pinto $181,300
Implementation- Veta $91,400
Timber (minus deposits)- Pinto
$539,200
Timber (minus deposits)- Veta $125,250
Net Value
$89,450
17
Figure 1. Potential huckleberry habitat is displayed as stands in Pacific silver fir and mountain hemlock vegetation zones. Points include Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) and Region 6 ecology plots. FIA plot points were included where big huckleberry was listed as a major understory species. Ecology plot points were included where the plant association of the plot included a major component of big huckleberry.
18
Figure 2. Huckleberry management likelihood based on NWFP and LRMP designations and associated regulations, objectives, and desired conditions. All combinations of designations could not be clearly labeled on this map; reference stand-alone NWFP and LRMP maps in Appendix B, and see Table 1 for a detailed breakdown of management likelihood by designation.
19
Figure 3. A selection of known historic picking areas on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
20
Figure 4. Potential huckleberry treatment stands on the Gifford Pinchot were identified as Pacific silver fir or mountain hemlock vegetation zone, within 150 feet of a road, with slope less than 20%, between 20 and 100 years old, and in NWFP and LRMP designations that support huckleberry management (determines high or moderate likelihood).
21
Figure 5. Recommendations for huckleberry enhancement treatment areas include a combination of known historic picking areas as well as other areas identified as potential habitat that are both accessible and available for active management. Map is only intended to aid in visualization of spatial distribution of available treatment areas. Result are preliminary and will be updated following field validation work.
22
Figure 6. Huckleberry management treatments in western Washington and Northwest Oregon include sites on the Mt. Baker Snoqualmie, Gifford Pinchot, Mt. Hood, and Willamette National Forests.
23
Figure 7. Huckleberry management projects on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest have occurred primarily in the Sawtooth Berryfields north of Indian Heaven Wilderness and in the Burley Mountain-Pole Patch area west of Mount St. Helens.
24
Appendix A: Huckleberry Ecology and Management Report
Ecology and Management of Big Huckleberry
Prepared by USFS Region 6 Ecology Program
September 2016
This document was compiled by Cheryl Friesen*, USFS Science Liaison, using previous work done by
David Lebo in 2009, Wes Wong in 2015, Jessica Hudec in 2016, and others. Funding was obtained by the
Pinchot Partners collaborative group through a grant from the Weyerhaeuser Family Foundation.
*Corresponding author. Telephone: 541-822-7226, email: [email protected]
25
Table of Contents
Ecology and Management of Big Huckleberry
Ecology Page
Sexual and Vegetative Reproduction...…………………………………………….. 3
Seed…………………………………………………………………………………....3
Vegetative Reproduction…………….……………………………………………….3
Flowering….……………………………………………………………….………….3
Pollinators……………………….……………………………………………………4
Dispersal Biology…………………………………………………………..…………4
Genetic Differentiation and Diversity………………………………………….…...4
Site Characteristics/Succession.……………………………………….….…………5
Fire Ecology or Adaptations………………………………………………...……....6
Berry Production………………………………………………………..….………..6
Threats…………………………………………………………………….….………8
Tribal Interests………………………………………………………….….….……..9
Management
Management Observations from Research………………………………………10
Management Options from Demonstrations……………………………………..13
Other Resources……………………………………………………………………17
References………………………………………………………………….……….18
26
Ecology and Management of Big Huckleberry
Prepared by USFS Region 6 Ecology Program
August 2016
Ecology
Sexual and Vegetative Reproduction Big huckleberry may reproduce through seed or by vegetative production from adventitious buds on
rhizomes (Ingersol and Wilson 1990; Stark 1989) and root crown (Agee 1994). Reproduction through
seed is rare under natural conditions. Populations are usually maintained through lateral expansion of
vegetative clones (Ingersol and Wilson 1990; Stark 1989).
Seed Flowers are pollinated by bees (Hunn and Norton 1984; Martin 1979) with each stem node having the
capacity to produce 1 berry (Dahlgreen 1984). A typical berry carries 47 seeds. Mean germination is
around 42% (Stark and Baker 1992). Simulations showed that even a small local seed source greatly
increases population growth rates, thereby balancing strong consumer pressure (Yang 2011).
Vegetative Reproduction
Big huckleberry possesses an extensive system of rhizomes (Haeussler et al. 1990; Miller 1997), with
adventitious buds distributed evenly along the length of the rhizome (Miller 1997). Vegetative production
is relied upon highly for regeneration after disturbance (Ingersol and Wilson 1990). Fruit productivity is
more sensitive to solar radiation than vegetative production (Dahlgreen 1984).
Flowering
Huckleberry flowers develop in early spring when adequate moisture is provided by snow melt and
precipitation. Lingering snow packs on mesic aspects could delay flower formation and protect bushes
from frosts that are fatal in open areas on xeric aspects (Minore and Smart 1975).
Seedlings and clonal shoots begin flowering and fruiting three to five years after establishment (Minore et
al. 1979, Barney 1999).
Pollinators
The inverted urceolate flowers of V. membranaceum are highly specialized for pollination by long-
tongued bees, such as bumblebees (Bombus). The pollen is shed from pores in the anthers onto the bodies
of bees that vibrate the flowers. The pollen is sticky and heavy, not easily transported by wind.
Bumblebees and other specialized wild solitary bees are capable of “sonicating” or vibrating the pollen
27
from the anther. Maintaining dense native plantings along the perimeter of a planting will encourage
nesting by wild bees and aid with pollination (OSU 2016).
Since V. membranaceum is insect-pollinated and predominantly outcrossing, pollen flow between
source populations has the potential of adding genetic diversity to founders (vander Kloet 1988; S. Yang,
unpublished data).
Fruit set of understory shrubs is rarely limited by inadequate pollination (Stephenson 1981,
Niesenbaum 1993).
Dispersal Biology
The dispersal biology of V. membranaceum is complex, hence, expectations for the effect of founding are
unclear. On the one hand, this species is strongly outcrossing (as opposed to selfing), and dispersed by
highly mobile frugivorous dispersal agents, traits that may promote high levels of gene flow and long-
distance dispersal. Kin-structured dispersal is also likely, as a single fruit contains numerous seeds (Yang
2008).
Observed frugivorous visitors in secondary succession include coyotes, cedar waxwings, varied
thrushes, Townsend’s solitaires, white-crowned sparrows, black bears, and golden-mantled ground
squirrels. During the time when V. membranaceum fruit is available, numerous coyote scats containing
partially and completed digested fruits can be found along coyote travel corridors. Because more than
3500 seeds can be found in a single coyote scat, we suspect that coyotes play a major role in seed
dispersal. Bears can also remove high quantities of fruit (Yang 2008). Big huckleberry was one of the few
animal-dispersed plants beginning to colonize the primary successional Pumice Plan at Mount St. Helens
(Yang 2008).
Genetic Differentiation and Diversity
The so-called “founder effect” is a reduction in genetic variation (diversity) in a new population resulting
from it being started (founded) by only a sample (a subset) of individuals from the larger source
population(s) and, therefore, representing only a sample (fraction) of the gene pool of the source
population(s). Founder populations can be at an ecological disadvantage because they may consist of
individuals that lack advantageous alleles (genes) that increase the population’s fitness (e.g., drought
hardiness, cold hardiness, disease resistance, etc.). Or they may possess recessive deleterious (harmful)
alleles that, if expressed, decrease the population’s fitness (Yang 2008).
Studies found no evidence of a strong founder effect in new populations at Mt. St. Helens.
Genetic diversity in the newly founded population tended to be higher than in some of the source regions.
These results indicate that high gene flow among sources and long-distance dispersal are important
processes shaping the genetic diversity in young V. membranaceum populations (Yang 2008). Research
suggests that natural populations of V. membranaceum are commonly composed of diverse founders
derived from long-distance dispersal. For these and other species with similar dispersal biology, we
suggest that restoration projects consider relatively large seed transfer zones encompassing diverse
locations (Yang 2008).
Long-distance dispersal, combined with harsh environmental conditions, leads to colonization
from multiple source populations, lack of a founder effect in the new population, and no increase in fine-
scale and landscape-scale population genetic structure for V. membranaceum at Mount St. Helens (Yang
2008).
Is there high gene flow and diversity among V. membranaceum populations at Summit Lake?
Possibly not because populations may not have established by long-distance dispersal of seed from
multiple source populations but rather by selfing (asexual reproduction and short-distance dispersal of
seed from local plants already established in the area). Selfing includes asexual, vegetative, and clonal
reproduction: different terms for essentially the same thing (Yang 2008).
Site Characteristics/Succession
28
It is typically found in open and forested habitats between altitudes of 1000 m and 1800 m above sea level
throughout the Pacific Northwest (Yang 2008). As an understory species, big huckleberry can grow
beneath a partially closed forest canopy, or in sunny openings (French, 1999; Haeussler et al. 1990). Big
huckleberry has greatest potential on cool mesic sites with minimal overstory (Dahlgreen 1984). In mid-
elevation and subalpine of the Mount Hood area, Oregon, big huckleberry is an early seral plant species
(Norton et al. 1999), with greater frequency and coverage in open stands of mountain hemlock, subalpine
fir, Pacific silver fir, and Douglas-fir associations. They decrease as stands close (Douglas 1970; Lotan et
al. 1981).
Decline of big huckleberry as forests move toward climax status is inevitable, especially in areas
of crown closure (Dahlgreen 1984). Without disturbance, big huckleberry will gradually decrease in
dominance, crowded out by trees (Minore 1972).
Most huckleberry fields originated from the uncontrolled wildfires that were common in the
Northwest before modern fire protection and control techniques were applied. Ecologically, these fields
are seral: temporary stages in the natural succession from treeless burn to climax forest. Without fire or
other radical disturbance, huckleberries are gradually crowded out by invading trees and brush (Minore
1972).
Fire Ecology or Adaptations
Big huckleberries occur in early or late seral stages, and generally have their greatest productivity on sites
that had experienced disturbance about 50 years prior (Martin 1979).
Foliage is of low flammability, allowing for survival after low severity fires, with top-kill
resulting from higher severity fires. Top-killed plants resprout from rhizomes (Dahlgreen 1984).
The clonal habit favors ecotypic variation among populations: i.e. plants subjected to regular fire
intervals may be better suited to surviving fire than individuals developed under fire suppression
(Dahlgreen 1984). Seed is not an important post-fire recolonization method and is rarely found in post-
fire areas (Miller 1997).
Historically, burning of big huckleberry patches by Native Americans was a regular activity in
the subalpine zone of the Cascade and Pacific ranges. To enhance production, fires were set in autumn
after berry harvest to reduce invasion of shrubs and trees (Boyd 1999). Fields of big huckleberry in the
Pacific Northwest were also created by uncontrolled wildfires that occurred before effective fire
suppression (Minore and Dubrasich 1978).
Plants are consumed by fire only when adequate fuels are present to dry and preheat stems and
foliage (Miller 1977). Heat penetration into soil layers where rhizomes occur will affect big huckleberry’s
ability to produce postfire - vegetative sprouts (Miller 1977). In preferred habitats, big huckleberry will
generally survive low to moderate severity fires, attaining preburn coverage in 3-7 years with stem
number and density increasing (Bradley et al. 1992; Coates and Haeussler 1986). Moderate to severe fires
on coarse textured soil or areas with a thin organic layer kill underground rhizomes, resulting in heavy
mortality (Coates and Haeussler 1986).
Western huckleberries may grow too slowly to take advantage of the flush of nutrients released
by fire (Martin 1979). Globe huckleberry takes 8-15 years before fruiting abundantly after broadcast
burns, and depth of heat penetration into the soil strongly influenced the number of sprouts that emerged
subsequent to fire (Miller 1977).
Berry Production
Minore et al. (1979) noted that weather influenced annual berry crops of V. membranaceum more than
any site characteristic, and suggested that conclusions about site production could not be based on
samples from 1 or 2 years. Meteorological events determine yearly production, but the physical,
vegetative and historical site characteristics are the ultimate factors that affect presence or absence of the
globe huckleberry on a site.
Depth and duration of previous winter snowpack, killing frosts, and erratic weather events
obscure the effects of soil, topography, and elevation on berry production in any given year (Minore and
29
Dubaisech 1978). Huckleberry fruit production is affected by snow pack duration (Minore 1972, Minore
and Dubrasich 1978), snow depth (Minore and Dubrasich 1978, Martin 1979), drought (Stark and Baker
1992), cold or wet weather during critical phases of pollination and fruit development (Shaffer 1971), and
volcanic ash fall (Hunn and Norton 1984). Sites protected from frost have more consistent fruit
production (Minore and Smart 1978).
Hunn and Norton (1984) found yields were correlated with elevation, slope, and distance east or
west of the Cascade Crest. Martin (1979) found that mesic aspects produced more fruit than xeric aspects.
Dahlgreen (1984) found that big huckleberry fruit production in southern Washington is positively
associated with “adjusted solar radiation.”
Greater berry production occurs in soils high in organic matter. Soil moisture availability will
affect quality and quantity of berry production within a growing season (Stark and Baker 1992).
Huckleberries frequently grow in the partial shade of moderately open forest stands. These bushes
often are large and vigorous, but they seldom produce many berries. However, seasons occasionally occur
in which shaded bushes produce a good crop (Minore 1972).
Berry production usually decreases with increased forest overstory (Minore 1984). In Montana,
aspect has the greatest effect upon berry production. Fruit decreases from optimum northwest aspects to
north, northeast, then from east to west. Canopy cover is inversely related to berry production; however,
south or west aspects show no inverse relation. On south and west aspects, canopy removal may decrease
population due to subsequent moisture stress Martin 1979).
It takes many years for seedlings and clonal shoots to begin flowering and fruiting after
disturbance and establishment. Minore (1984) found it took seven or more years, and Barney (1999)
found it took at least 5 years. Berry production increases 15 to 20 years after wildfire on mesic north or
east aspects and 5 to 10 years if sites are clearcut and broadcast burned. Most productive sites were in
timber stands that were disturbed in the last 50 years. Fruit production failed to exceed a certain threshold
irrespective of aspect when the estimated tree canopy exceeded 30%, presumably because shading
prevented flower formation.
From Martin’s study, fruit production in clearcuts was dependent on the site aspect and post-
logging treatment. Percent huckleberry cover and fruit production in most mesic-aspect, broadcast-burned
clearcuts were significantly higher than those of adjacent, undisturbed stands. Fruit production was not
correlated with the percent cover of or height of huckleberry shrubs, suggesting that vegetative growth
and fruit production respond to different environment influences.
Although coverage of big huckleberry may have a positive response to fire disturbance, berry
production is usually delayed. Overstory removal with minimal huckleberry disturbance is recommended
to increase berry production. Frilling (2,4-D applied to frills cut in trees) and girdling are 2 methods that
effectively remove an overstory with minimal disturbance Minore et al 1979).
In general, understory species respond to stand thinning by increased biomass and cover,
particularly for clonal species and woody shrubs. Removal of canopy trees increases light, water, nutrient
availability, and soil temperature. In western Oregon huckleberry fields where conifers have invaded,
berry production increased when overstory reduction methods did the least amount of damage to
understory species. Although V. membranaceum may be more abundant in the older stands (old-growth
forest), berry production tends to be less closed-canopy forests. Minore (1972) expressed concern about
declines in V. membranaceum berry production due to conifer encroachment.
Berry production declines when open-grown V. membranaceum shrubs become heavily shaded
by closed forest canopies. In the absence of wildfire, silvicultural treatments to reduce or eliminate the
forest overstory are necessary if former levels of berry production are to be restored (Minore 1984). A
few years after establishment, huckleberries produce a maximum amount of berries; then production
gradually declines as other shrubs and trees dominate the site (Hall, 1964). Really old shrubs (75 years or
older) may produce less fruit and fruit of lower quality than younger shrubs. Disturbance may benefit
huckleberry fruit production by destroying old stems and rejuvenating shrubs (Martin 1979).
Threats
30
Fire Management: Most huckleberry fields originated from the uncontrolled wildfires that were common
in the Northwest before modern fire protection and control techniques were applied. Ecologically, these
fields are seral: temporary stages in the natural succession from treeless burn to climax forest. Without
fire or other radical disturbance, huckleberries are gradually crowded out by invading trees and brush. A
few years after establishment they produce a maximum amount of berries; then production gradually
declines as other shrubs and trees dominate the site. Lodgepole pine, mountain ash, and beargrass seem to
be the most serious competitors. The acreage occupied by thin-leaved huckleberry fields is declining
rapidly as old burns become reforested and new burns become increasingly rare. Many formerly
productive huckleberry areas now produce no berries at all. Others are shrinking as trees and brush invade
along their edges (Minore 1972).
Most large wildfires have been effectively prevented or controlled in recent years, and Indian-set
fires have not burned over the most heavily used, high-elevation huckleberry fields for several
generations. As a result, trees of low timber quality have been invading many high quality huckleberry
fields. These trees eventually form dense subalpine forests that crowd and shade the shrubs, eventually
eliminating huckleberry production (Minore 1979).
Climate Change: Climate change may influence the ecology of huckleberry by altering the pattern of the
growing season. The Northwest climate is projected to increase in winter temperature, with warmer
winters and hotter-drier summers. Precipitation regimes may shift potentially bringing more precipitation
to the region in some areas, but generally a trend of similar conditions is expected across the region until
2050 (Littell 2012; Fettig et al. 2013; Kunkel et al. 2013). Increased temperatures will shift the proportion
of snow/rain delivery across the coastal to interior gradient, as well as an increase in elevation of the
amount of precipitation falling as rain. Warmer and drier conditions are and will continue to increase
wildfire activity resulting in larger and potentially higher severity fires across the forests found in the
range of climatic zones. Fire regimes are anticipated to change across the coast range and Olympic
peninsula, interior valleys (Bachelet et al. 2011), Cascades, and interior mountain ranges that will the
influence recovery of vegetation in the areas burned.
Many of the desired qualities and abundance of non-timber forest products (NTFP’s) like
huckleberry are associated with forest seral stage, or time since disturbance, and the severity of the
disturbance. Challenges are and will likely arise around the temporal and spatial periodicity of NTFPs
based on the type of disturbance and integrity of the habitats. Many of the ecological or climatic niches of
valued NTFPs are anticipated to remain the same, but as the environment changes, so will the ranges of
many species in response to disturbance (Fettig et al. 2013).
Native Bees: Populations of the huckleberry’s primarily pollinator, native bees, have been in decline.
According to the Xerces Society, anecdotal observations have found that bumble bees adapted to cooler
temperatures are in decline, while bumble bees adapted to warmer temperatures are expanding their
ranges northward. What effect this will have on local plants like huckleberry is unknown. Impacts to
fruiting and genetic diversity are possible (Spivek et al. 2011).
Non-Native Fruitflies: Spotted Wing Drosophila, Drosophila suzukii Matsumura, is an invasive
agricultural pest in Oregon, affecting primarily the small fruit and cherry industries. It has been found on
native huckleberries in Washington state. A research lab at OSU is currently studying its distribution in
Oregon and whether it is surviving on native Vaccinium. What effect this will have on native huckleberry
is unknown. This species of fruitfly will consume ripe berries as well as those in decline.
Tribal Interests
Due to its high yield, carbohydrate content, and sweetness, big huckleberry comprised a significant
portion of the traditional diets of many aboriginal groups throughout the Pacific Northwest, and there is
evidence to indicate that native peoples selectively burned portions of existing huckleberry patches to
keep them in an early seral stage and enhance production (Agee 1993; French 1999; Lepofsky et al. 2005;
31
Mack 2003; Main-Johnson 1999 and 2006; Norton et al. 1999; Richards et al. 2006; Whitlock et al.
2002). This activity occurred until it was prohibited by the first decade of the 20th century (Fisher 1997).
For example, the huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.) is a sacred food among many Native Americans in the
Pacific Northwest, and huckleberry gathering has long served as a focal point for renewing kinship and
cross-tribal social ties (Fisher 2002; Knudson 1980). There continues to be interest from Native
Americans for sustainable management of and access to this resource.
The Treaty of 1855 reserves the rights of the tribes and bands of middle Oregon to gather berries
on unclaimed lands in common with the citizens of the United States. “… the exclusive right of taking
fish in the streams running through and bordering said reservation is hereby secured to said Indians; and
at all other usual and accustomed stations, in common with citizens of the United States, and of erecting
suitable houses for curing the same; also the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and
pasturing their stock on unclaimed lands, in common with citizens, is secured to them.” (as quoted in
Jaqua 2002).
In 1997, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Mt. Hood N.F. and the
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation. The MOU establishes a framework for a working
relationship responsive to management of the huckleberry resource: The Forest Service agreed to
recognize the importance of protecting and managing huckleberry habitat. The Tribes and Forest Service
mutually agreed to work together on long-range objectives, plans, and programs for the management of
huckleberry habitat on National Forest System lands.
Management Observations from Research
From Minore et al. (1979) --- Mt. Hood
Bulldozing provided suitable slash fuel for burning if the slash was allowed to cure for 1 year.
Bulldozing is less expensive than hand-falling but harder on the land and visual qualities.
Huckleberry shrubs sprouted vigorously but produced no berries for at least 3 years.
Cut and burn of 11-month old slash unit burned readily by drip torch in areas where slash was
present. Areas without slash did not burn at all.
Pre-treating with herbicide and then burning was not successful in carrying fire.
Overstory trees should be controlled in the areas to be managed.
If berry production is to be maintained or increased without delays of 5 years or longer, overstory
management must be done with minimal disturbance of the huckleberry understory.
If chemicals are an option, a one-to-one solution of 2,4-D amine and water, applied to frills cut in
the individual trees, effectively kills a conifer overstory without disturbing the huckleberries. It
should be applied in the spring, just as conifer buds are breaking.
Individual girdling would produce the result at somewhat higher cost.
Frilling and girdling will be least expensive when done before a dense overstory canopy
develops.
Bulldozing and burning can be a cost effective technique for huckleberry management under
large areas of dense, merchantable canopies, and where berry production delays of 5 years or
longer are acceptable.
Using a crawler-type tractor with raised bulldozer blade, all trees in a large area should be pushed
over and allowed to dry for a year before burning is attempted. Burning should then be done
while soil moisture remains high, and as soon as the slash will carry a fire. This method has a
severe visual impact on the landscape; it will eliminate berry production for several years, and
long-term berry production benefits are unknown.
32
Clearcutting can be effective. Unfortunately, merchantable overstories do not always occur on
areas capable of producing good huckleberry crops.
Sheep grazing is compatible with huckleberry production, but sometimes incompatible with
huckleberry pickers. Wherever possible, grazing should be scheduled so that sheep are out of the
berry fields before the huckleberries ripen.
Nitrogen fertilization can be used where optimal growth and berry production are desired.
Planting to intensively manage for huckleberry would require that the young shrubs be planted in
heavily used berry fields or in recent clearcuts where there was already berry production.
Cultural techniques are available, and berry shrubs can be produced from seed with little
difficulty.
In high elevation areas where spring frosts cause frequent crop failures, the frost-resistant blueleaf
huckleberry could be introduced and managed. It is low-growing and difficult to pick, however,
and seems to be less productive than big huckleberry. Mixtures of these two species probably
should be grown where frequent frosts occur in the growing season.
Beargrass is a major competitor: herbicides, burning and grazing have not been effective at
control.
Use of fire
Prescribed burning is not a short-term solution to increase huckleberry production. Burned shrubs
produced vigorous new shoots but no berries.
Following prescribed fire, significant berry production was delayed for at least 5 years and
perhaps longer. Meanwhile, tree seedlings invaded the burned area, and reinvasion by trees may
be almost as fast as huckleberry recovery.
When new shoots eventually produce berries, burned areas may be more productive than
undisturbed areas.
Plants are consumed by fire only when adequate fuels are present to dry and preheat stems and
foliage.
Moderate to severe fires on coarse textured soil or areas with a thin organic layer kill
underground rhizomes, resulting in heavy mortality (Coates and Haeussler, 1986). Heat
penetration into soil layers where rhizomes occur will affect big huckleberry’s ability to produce
vegetative-sprouts post-fire (Miller, 1977).
In preferred habitats, big huckleberry will generally survive low to moderate severity fires,
attaining preburn coverage in 3-7 years with stem number and density increasing (Bradley, et al.,
1992; Coates and Haeussler, 1986).
Most case studies recommend spring burning when duff moistures are high (Martin 1979;
Douglas 1970; Miller 1977; Bradley et al 1992; Coates 1986).
From Anzinger (2002) –- Mt. Hood
Future huckleberry fields need to be created with stand-replacing disturbances. Since stand-
replacing fires, wild or otherwise, continue to be socially unacceptable phenomena, future
huckleberry fields will most likely be created by alternative disturbances. Future yields of big
huckleberry will require management practices that mimic past disturbance regimes and slow
stand development.
Big huckleberry may require the protection of a sparse canopy, such as that provided by dead
snags after a wildfire (Minore pers. comm. 2000), for vigorous growth and fruit production. In
this study, the highest fruit production class values were observed in huckleberry fields with 35-
50% canopy cover and 4-7m²/ha of conifer basal area. Therefore, selected individual trees and/or
groups of trees should be left within the harvest unit even though they may be killed by
subsequent broadcast burns. Forest managers should be prepared to wait as long as a decade for
big huckleberry fruit production after canopy disturbance.
33
Once huckleberry fields are created or re-created in areas that once supported them, frequent low-
severity disturbance will be needed to prevent forest encroachment and maintain field
productivity. Prescribed burns conducted about every 20 years in late summer and early fall
would most closely mirror the traditional disturbance regime. Girdling and cut-and-pile methods
of forest clearing may be suited to the maintenance of existing huckleberry fields as an alternative
to prescribed burning.
From Martin (1979)
Berry volume and number decreases in stands where tree canopy density exceeds 30%.
From Hamilton and Peterson (2003) -- Central British Columbia
Plant response to burning depended on the tolerance of species to burning and the timing and
severity of the fire. The severity of the burn was influenced by the depth, type, and moisture
content of the humus layer; the moisture content and type of fuels; and site conditions such as
slope and weather conditions at the time of burning (e.g., wind speed, temperature, and humidity).
Spring and fall burn comparison study was done post-logging to determine effects on understory
vegetation.
o Spring burn consumed more of the forest floor, but the fall burn removed twice as much
of the large fuels. Fuels were actually drier in the spring and that burn was more severe.
o Both fires removed about 60% of the fine fuel.
V. membranaceum appeared to be favored somewhat over other shrubs by the more severe spring
burn.
Black (big) huckleberry showed considerable variability in its response to burning depending on
burn severity and site factors.
Burning initially produced a significant shift from a shrub and herb dominated understory
community to an herb-community. Over time, the shrub component regained prominence.
From Neil (2011)
Though there have been several studies looking at understory response to thinning and gap creation, their
study designs either aggregated shrubs into functional groups or, the study sites did not include big
huckleberry (Kerns and Rutzika, personal communications 2016). This study looked at the relationship
between overstory basal area and understory vegetation for species grouped by traits that reflect food
availability for wildlife (i.e., the production of flowers, fleshy fruit, and palatable leaves) in thinned
versus unthinned stands at seven Douglas-fir forests in western Oregon 6 years following thinning. Lower
overstory densities and thinnings were associated with higher cover of flowering, fleshy fruit and
palatable leaf producing species.
Management Demonstrations in the Vicinity of the Gifford Pinchot National
Forest
1. Huckleberry Enhancement Project (Gobin et al. 2011)
A cooperative project between the Tulalip Tribes and the US Forest Service with monitoring assistance
from Western Washington University staff and students. Stillaguamish River drainage, Darrington Ranger
District, the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Washington. The project goal was to increase fruit
34
production in target huckleberry fields. The fields had been producing substantial huckleberry fruit since
the mature forest was harvested in the area in the 1980’s, but fruit production was declining, and conifer
species were becoming established and overgrowing the huckleberry plants (Gobin et al. 2011 and Adams
et al. 2011).
Treatment: In 2009 they thinned 28 year-old conifer stands with big-leaf huckleberry understory,
reducing residual canopies to < 30% in small, trial blocks of approximately 5 acres. In 2011, additional
stands were thinned similarly, but they left islands of residual trees. Brush was pulled away from the
leave trees.
Monitoring: Plots were installed, with measurements of canopy cover and huckleberry cover before and
after thinning treatments.
Results: The post-thin data indicated average overstory canopy cover was reduced by 22% - 28%. After 2
years of monitoring, they saw an increase in huckleberry plant cover, but treated sites did not differ
statistically from untreated sites in berry production. Treated sites had greater productivity due to
increased area in huckleberry cover vs. area in tree cover.
2. Lodgeberry RAC Thinning Project (Boyer 2008)
Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Cowlitz Valley Ranger District. (Boyer ppt. from Huckleberry
Workshop 2008). Volcanic flat 2 ½ miles north of Mt Adams Wilderness and 2 miles east of the Yakima
Reservation boundary. Cispus Adaptive Management Area, 25 miles southeast of Randle, WA.
Site: Lodgepole Landscape Design Unit = 8100 acres, elevation ranges 3200 to 4700 feet. Vegetation
dominated by continuous young stands of lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and mountain hemlock, naturally
regenerated following 1918 Two Lakes Fire. Beargrass and huckleberry understory. Soils are shallow to
mod deep derived from residuum /glacial till, cold soil temps.
Up to 4”of tephra present from the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption. Surface soils are very thin sandy loams
or loamy sands.
Treatment Project 1- 1998: Purpose is to test 4 methods of treating young Lodgepole to reduce fire
hazard.
• Treatment 1 – thin conifers > 3’ tall and <4 “ diameter. BB slash.
• Treatment 2 – thin conifers > 3’ tall and < 6” diameter. BB slash.
• Treatment 3 – thin conifers > 3’ tall and <8” diameter. BB slash.
• Treatment 4 – thin conifers > 3’ tall and < 8” diameter. HP/Burn slash.
Monitoring: 2007
Results:
Cutting material < 8” was effective for fire hazard reduction and potential huckleberry
production.
Some release of huckleberry noted though vigorous response observed in bear grass.
Broadcast burning attempted in 1999 and determined too risky due to short burn window with fire
season (late June or July).
Treatment Project 2- 1997: Non-commercially thin trees > 3’ tall and < 8” diameter to a 20’ spacing
between tree crowns or 30’ spacing between trees. 50 tpa. Leave all deciduous hardwoods and whitebark
pine. Lop thinning slash to a 24” height. Variable 25-50’ buffer along FR 2329 & 5603.
Monitoring: No record.
35
3. Mowich Huckleberry Enhancement Project (Holmson 2006)
Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Mt. Adams Ranger District.
Treatment: Management of 75 year old fire regenerated stand. Western hemlock zone (western
hemlock/Alaska huckleberry/dogwood bunchberry plant association. Thin trees to approximately 60
trees/acre (28’ x 28’) in uplands; 110 trees/acre (20’ x 20’) in riparian reserves. 2 units underburned after
logging. A percentage of the logging slash (limbs and needles) would be left on site to facilitate the burn.
1 unit thinned and hand piled and burned. Hand fertilize 1 unit with 100 lbs/ac. Ammonium sulfate (21-0-
0).
Monitoring: No record.
4. Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (Jimenez 2008)
Site: Plant Associations -- Hemlock/Beargrass, Mt. Hemlock/LP, Silver Fir; Soil: Howash & Pinhead
(Andesite, Volcanic Ash); Elevation Range: 4,000-4,800 ft; Annual Precip: 70-100 in
Treatment: Intermediate thin/shelterwood. Protect existing shrubs: log over snow pack of at least 3’;
Open canopy by thinning: BA 90-110 ft2; Canopy Closure 30-50%; Reduce slash: transport treetops to
the landings
Monitoring: Little empirical data. Some observations.
Results:
Snow pack sites immediate flush of berries first season following logging
Families again using usual and accustomed areas
Partial or no snow pack only now recovering
High elevation sites approximately three years for flush of berries
5. Huckleberry Thin (Gerwing 2011)
Clackamas River Ranger District and the Zigzag Ranger District, Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon.
Huckleberry Thin EA, in the Abbott Burn area (USDA USDI Huckleberry Thin EA)
Site: Primarily lodgepole pine: the trees seeded in naturally after a wildfire, and the stand age is now
approximately 80 years.
Treatment: Trees would be retained at 85 – 95 square feet of basal area (outside of skips).
Skips (unthinned patches) would be created that would vary in size and number and would add up to 10%
of each unit
Monitoring: Data on huckleberry plant abundance, size, and productivity were collected from 40 m2
circular monitoring plots located in four units of the “Abbott Burn” area of the Huckleberry Enhancement
EA project area. To distinguish thinning treatment affects from year to year variations in huckleberry
production, plots within the thinning units were paired with plots in similar forest outside the units
Results: No record.
6. Salmonberry Timber Sale 5
We could not find the original NEPA from 1998, but we did find a NEPA review by FS Ecologist Jeanne
Rice for Unit 5. The goal was to create suitable huckleberry habitat to regenerate huckleberry shrubs,
36
improve growing conditions for existing shrubs and enhance berry production. Post-harvest results are
described above in Anzinger’s Thesis.
Site: The prescription treats an old burn huckleberry field probably 90-100 years old.
Treatment: ~ 30 acres. patch clearcut with reserves and commercial thin. • Establish one large irregularly
shaped opening with additional 2-5 acre openings. Thin from below remaining acres, leaving 125 tpa but
up to 222 tpa in portions; approximately 60% of existing stand densities, favoring WL, RA, PP and
WWP. Tractor logging method; Fuel treatment: tractor pile concentrations; Leave 6-8 wildlife trees/acre
favoring DF, WRC, WL, WWP and NF. Leave largest trees. 10% of the stand acres are to be left in
clumps and 5% of trees are to be left scattered throughout the stand in the largest diameters available in
addition to the wildlife trees. Retain all hemlock and PSF >20” in diameter and legacy trees, protect
existing huckleberry shrubs in the understory through directional felling and placement of skid trails.
Monitoring -- Pre-treatment field and NEPA review results by Jeanne Rice, FS Ecologist:
The large opening intended for regeneration of new shrubs is long and narrow and creates a lot of
edge, decreasing the ability to maintain light to the understory for very long without followup
treatments.
The EA does not discuss what the long-term strategy would be for this area to maintain growth
and eventually reach fruit production. Canopy cover and use of any prescribed burning is not
discussed and may not be needed to eliminate competition (but may be needed to rejuvenate old
shrubs).
The opening should probably be bigger but visuals and wind concerns are limiting factors on this
site.
The prescription would meet stated objectives in the short term, namely to maintain existing
huckleberry shrubs and enhance conditions for growth. Depending on post-harvest conditions of
the shrubs and age, fruit production levels may rise and be more consistent than current levels.
The thinned portions of the stand will continue to need treatment to maintain light to the
understory where there are existing shrubs.
If asked to tweak the prescription based on studies to date and observations in the field, ideally the
prescription would be a shelterwood with small openings, helicopter log maintaining a 40-50% canopy
cover (or less depending on wind risk) and cool prescribed burn if needed to remove competing
vegetation that would take advantage of the canopy disturbance. Favor retention of early seral species,
legacy trees and windfirm trees, thin from below, protect existing huckleberry shrubs with directional
felling and designated skid trails (if tractor logged), minimize soil disturbance to prevent destruction of
underground rhizomes. Keep the unit off the ridge due to wind concerns. Plant at a wide spacing with
early seral species such as white pine. Followup with girdling trees in the overstory. Expect some
blowdown post harvest. Future treatments should continue to provide adequate light to the understory
through girdling, control of competing vegetation and additional openings dependent on wind risk
evaluation. This prescription may increase the chance of getting fruit production more than the existing
prescription but would not meet objective for regeneration of huckleberry to any great degree.
Post-harvest results are described above in Anzinger’s Thesis.
Other Resources
Other huckleberry restoration projects that may generate additional ideas:
Mowich Huckleberry Restoration EA: Thin conifers to a 30-40% residual canopy cover,
reconstruct approximately 1.0 mile of road, yard tops attached to landings (machine pile landing
slash), burn slash piles. Objective is to enhance huckleberry growth and production.
37
Sawtooth Huckleberry Restoration EA: The proposal is to enhance huckleberry production. A
variety of methods for reducing tree canopy cover could occur, including lopping, girdling,
firewood harvest, commercial timber harvest, and prescribed burning. (USDA USFS 2009).
Polepatch Huckleberry Restoration EA, 2013: Improve production of native huckleberries on
774 acres to benefit local Native Americans, recreational berry pickers, and wildlife through
thinning and prescribed burning treatments.
Summitt Thinning EA, 2005: The proposed action is to do variable density thinning on
approximately 70 acres; cut trees generally smaller than 12 inches in diameter with an average of
approximately 10 inches. Ground based logging systems will be used. Logging would be
conducted in the winter over snow to further protect existing huckleberry plants. Whole tree
yarding would be required to minimize slash and to maintain access to existing huckleberry
plants. Thinning will generally remove the smaller trees, but the objective is to enhance structural
and biological diversity by enhancing huckleberry production through variable spaced thinning.
Leave tree spacing will result in an average crown closure of 30%.
Seattle Public Utilities Big Huckleberry Pruning Study. They resampled 7 years after study
initiation and 5 years after the three consecutive years of pruning (which was one treatment) was
completed. The data analysis and summary report is not yet complete. High variability in
huckleberry productivity was found in regards to the treatments (pruning in one year, pruning
over 3 consecutive years, and no pruning). The biggest difference was between the two blocks, so
follow up investigations would involve soil characterization (soil moisture, soil organic
matter…). This year, they confirmed presence of spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) in
big huckleberry. Amy LaBarge, Watershed Natural Resources Manager, Seattle Public Utilities
38
Ecology and Management of Big Huckleberry Bibliography
Prepared by the Cheryl Ann Friesen, Region 6 Ecology Program, September 2016
The following references are either cited within the Ecology and Management of Big Huckleberry
(Friesen 2016) or are provided as supplemental information for those interested in additional exploration.
More information can also be found in the web-based Fire Effects Information System
(http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/vacmem/all.html).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams, H., R. Riley, P. Reed, and J. Gobin. 2011. Rejuvenation of Big Huckleberry Fields to Promote
Fruit Production. Ppt poster. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Agee, J.K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-320. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 52 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem
health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment).
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/6225
Agee, J.K. 1996. Fire in the Blue Mountains: a history, ecology, and research agenda. In: Jaindl, R. G.;
Quigley, T. M., eds. Search for a solution: sustaining the land, people and economy of the Blue
Mountains. Washington, DC: American Forests: 119-145. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Agee, J.K. and J. Kertis. 1987. Forest types of the North Cascades National Park Service Complex.
Canadian Journal of Botany. 65: 1520-1530. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a
copy.
Agee, J.K. and L. Smith. 1983. Subalpine tree invasion after fire in the Olympic Mountains. Tech. Compl.
Rep. 2. NPS Contract CS-9000-9-E079. Seattle, WA: National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Region:
122-15. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Alexander, S.J. 2001. Who, what and why: the products, their use, and issues about management of
nontimber forest products in the United States. In: Davidson-Hunt, Ian; Duchesne, Luc C.; Zasada, John
C., eds. Forest Communities in the Third Millennium: linking research, business, and policy toward a
sustainable nontimber forest product sector; Proceedings of the meeting; 1999 October 1-4; Kenora,
Ontario, Canada. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-217. St Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
North Central Research Station. 151 p. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Almack, J. 1986. Grizzly bear habitat use, food habits, and movements in the Selkirk Mountains, northern
Idaho. In: Contreras, Glen P.; Evans, Keith E., compilers. Proceedings--grizzly bear habitat symposium;
1985 April 30 - May 2; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 150-157. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Anzinger, D.L. 2002. Big huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum Dougl.) Ecology and Forest
Succession, Mt. Hood National Forest and Warm Springs Indian Reservation, Oregon. M.S. Thesis,
Oregon State University. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
39
Arno, S.F. 1976. The historical role of fire on the Bitterroot National Forest. Res. Pap. INT-187. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
29 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr292/int_rp187.pdf
Arno, S.F. 1980. Forest fire history in the Northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 78(8): 460-465. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Arno, S.F. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds.
Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 97-120. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Arno, S.F., D.G. Simmerman, and R.E. Keane. 1985. Forest succession on four habitat types in western
Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-177. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 74 p.
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr177.pdf
Atzet, T. and L.A. McCrimmon. 1990. Preliminary plant associations of the southern Oregon Cascade
Mountain province. Grants Pass, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Siskiyou National
Forest. 330 p. http://soda.sou.edu/Data/Library1/020725a1.pdf
Atzet, T. and D.L. Wheeler. 1984. Preliminary plant associations of the Siskiyou Mountain province.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 278 p.
http://soda.sou.edu/Data/Library1/020726a1.pdf
Author Unknown. 2012. Growing Huckleberries: Notes. Unpublished. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Barclay-Estrup, P. 1987. A new shrub for Ontario: mountain bilberry, Vaccinium membranaceum, in
Pukaskwa National Park. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 101(4): 526-531. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Barmore Jr., W.J. Jr.; D. Taylor, and P. Hayden. 1976. Ecological effects and biotic succession following
the 1974 Waterfalls Canyon Fire in Grand Teton National Park. Research Progress Report 1974-1975.
Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 99 p. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/
for a copy.
Barney, D.L. 1999. Growing western huckleberries. Sandpoint, Idaho Research & Extension Center. 1999
University of Idaho. 28pp. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Barney, D.L., P. McDaniel, and A. Falen. 2006. Soil characteristics associated with wild huckleberry and
bilberry colonies in the northwestern United States: Implications for managed production and cultivation.
Proceedings of the North American Blueberry Research & Extension Workers Conference. Tifton,
Georgia. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Barrett, S.W. and S.F. Arno. 1999. Indian fires in the Northern Rockies: Ethnohistory and ecology. In:
Boyd, Robert, ed. Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State
University: 50-64. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
40
Beetle, A.A. 1962. Range survey in Teton County, Wyoming. Part 2: Utilization and condition classes.
Bull. 400. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Agricultural Experiment Station. 38 p. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Bachelet, D., B.R. Johnson, S.D. Bridgham, P.V. Dunn, H.E. Anderson, and B.M. Rogers. 2011. Climate
Change Impacts on Western Pacific Northwest Prairies and Savannas. NorthwestScience, 85(2):411-429.
2011. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3955/046.085.0224
Bernard, S.R. and K.F. Brown. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM
physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301.
Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015016934559;view=1up;seq=1
Boyd, R.. 1999. Introduction. In: Boyd, Robert, ed. Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest.
Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University: 1-30. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a
copy.
Boyer, 2006. Huckleberry restoration on the Gifford Pinchot NF. 2006. Huckleberry Workshop
Presentation. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Bradley, A.F., W.C. Fischer, and N.V. Noste. 1992. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of eastern
Idaho and western Wyoming. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-290. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 92 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr287.pdf
Bradley, A.F., N.V. Noste, and W.C. Fischer. 1992. Fire ecology of forests and woodlands of Utah. Gen.
Tech. Rep. INT-287. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station. 128 p. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d03009628c;view=1up;seq=1
Brockway, D.G., C. Topik, M.A. Hemstrom, and W.H. Emmingham. 1983. Plant association and
management guide for the Pacific silver fir zone: Gifford Pinchot National Forest. R6-Ecol-130a.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 122 p.
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/2376
Brown, J.K. and J. Smith. eds. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech Rep.
RMRS-GRT-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station. 257 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/4554
Burke, C.J. 1979. Historic fires in the central western Cascades, Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State
University. 130 p. M.S. thesis. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Butler, D.R. 1979. Snow avalanche path terrain and vegetation, Glacier National Park, Montana. Arctic
and Alpine Research. 11(1): 17-32. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Charnley, S. and E. Donoghue. 2007. Areas of Potential Support for First Foods Project from
Communities and Forest Management Social Science Team. Unpublished Report. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Charnley, S., A.P. Fischer, and E.T. Jones. 2007. Integrating traditional and local ecological knowledge
into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 246:14–
28. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
41
Charnley, S., A.P. Fischer, and E.T. Jones. 2008. Traditional and Local Ecological Knowledge
About Forest Biodiversity in the Pacific Northwest. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-751. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Clary, W.P. 1983. Overstory-understory relationships: spruce-fir forests. In: Bartlett, E. T.; Betters, David
R., eds. Overstory-understory relationships in western forests. Western Regional Research Publication
No. 1. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Agriculture Experiment Station: 9-12. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Coates, D. and S. Haeussler. 1986. A preliminary guide to the response of major species of competing
vegetation to silvicultural treatments. Land Management Handbook Number 9. Victoria, BC: Ministry of
Forests, Information Services Branch. 88 p. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/lmh/Lmh09.htm
Cole, D.N. 1982. Vegetation of two drainages in Eagle Cap Wilderness, Wallowa Mountains, Oregon.
Res. Pap. INT-288. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 42 p. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007402518
Cole, D.N. 1988. Disturbance and recovery of trampled montane grassland and forests in Montana. Res.
Pap. INT-389. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station. 37 p. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007409280
Cole, D.N. and S.J. Trull. 1992. Quantifying vegetation response to recreational disturbance in the North
Cascades, Washington. The American Midland Naturalist. 66(4): 229-236. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Cooper, S.V.; K.E. Neiman, and D.W. Roberts. 1991 [Revised]. Forest habitat types of northern Idaho: a
second approximation. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-236. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Research Station. 143 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/24623
Crane, M.F., J.R. Habeck, and W.C. Fischer. 1983. Early postfire revegetation in a western Montana
Douglas-fir forest. Res. Pap. INT-319. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 29 p.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/136952#page/3/mode/1up
Crawford, J.A., W. Van Dyke, S.M. Meyers, and T.F. Haensly. 1986. Fall diet of blue grouse in Oregon.
The Great Basin Naturalist. 46(1): 123-127. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Dahlgreen, M.C. 1984. Observations on the ecology of Vaccinium membranaceum Dougl. on the
southeast slope of the Washington Cascades. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 120 p. Thesis.
Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Darrow, G.M. 1960. Blueberry breeding, past, present, future. American Horticultural Magazine. 39(1):
14-33. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Davis, D. and B. Butterfield. 1991. The Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Evaluation Area: A report to the
Bitterroot Technical Review Team. Unpublished report on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 56 p.
Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
42
Davis, K.M., B.D. Clayton, and W.C. Fischer. 1980. Fire ecology of Lolo National Forest habitat types.
INT-79. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 77 p. https://ia802702.us.archive.org/14/items/CAT80742339/CAT80742339.pdf
del Moral, R. and J.N. Long. 1977. Classification of montane forest community types in the Cedar River
drainage of western Washington, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 7: 217-225. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
del Moral, R. and A. Watson. 1978. Gradient structure of forest vegetation in the central Washington
Cascades. Vegetatio. 38(1): 29-48. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Dittberner, P.L. and M.R. Olson. 1983. The plant information network (PIN) data base: Colorado,
Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p.
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=govdocs_plants
Donnelly, S. 1993. Spring burning by habitat type in relation to artificial restoration. McCall, ID: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Payette National Forest. 19 p. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Douglas, G.W. 1972. Subalpine plant communities of the western North Cascades, Washington. Arctic
and Alpine Research. 4(2): 147-166. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Douglas, G.W. 1970. A vegetation study in the subalpine zone of the western North Cascades,
Washington. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 293 p. Thesis. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Doyle, K.M.; D.H. Knight, and D.L. Taylor. [and others]. 1998. Seventeen years of forest succession
following the Waterfalls Canyon Fire in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming. International Journal of
Wildland Fire. 8(1): 45-55. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Drew, L.A. 1967. Comparative phenology of seral shrub communities in the cedar/hemlock zone.
Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 108 p. Thesis. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a
copy.
Edge, W.D., C.L. Marcum, and S. Olson-Edge. 1988. Summer forage and feeding site selection by elk.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 52(4): 573-577. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a
copy.
Elzinga, C.L. and R.C. Shearer. 1997. Vegetation structure in old-growth stands in the Coram Research
Natural Area in northwestern Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GRT-364. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 22 p.
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_exp_forests/coram/rmrs_1997_elzinga_c001.pdf
Eyre, F.H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of
American Foresters. 148 p. Available at Oregon State University Valley Library Main Collection (SD143
.F54 )
Ferguson, D.E. and R.J. Boyd. 1988. Bracken fern inhibition of conifer regeneration in northern Idaho.
Res. Paper 388. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station. 11 p. https://archive.org/details/brackenferninhib388ferg
43
Ferguson, D.E. and F.D. Johnson. 1996. Classification of grand fir mosaic habitats. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-
GTR-337. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.
16 p. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007416707
Fettig, C. J., M.L. Reid, B.J. Bentz, S. Sevato, D.L. Spittlehouse, and T. Wang. 2013. Changing Climates,
Changing Forests: A Western North American Perspective. Journal of Forestry, 111(3): 214-228. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Fisher, A.H. 1997. The 1932 Handshake Agreement: Yakima Indian treaty rights and forest service policy
in the Pacific Northwest. Western Historical Quarterly (summer 1997): 187-217. Article can be ordered
from the National Agriculture Library:
http://rx3mt8ua3j.scholar.serialssolutions.com/?sid=google&auinit=AH&aulast=Fisher&atitle=The+1932
+handshake+agreement:+Yakama+Indian+treaty+rights+and+Forest+Service+policy+in+the+Pacific+No
rthwest&id=doi:10.2307/970893
Fonda, R.W. and L.C. Bliss. 1969. Forest vegetation of the montane and subalpine zones, Olympic
Mountains, Washington. Ecological Monographs. 39(3): 271-301. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Franklin, J.F. 1966. Vegetation and soils in the subalpine forests of the southern Washington Cascade
Range. Pullman, WA: Washington State University. 132 p. Thesis. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness.. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PNW-8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 417 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr008.pdf
Franklin, J.F., W.H. Moir, M.A. Hemstrom (and others). 1988. The forest communities of Mount Rainier
National Park. Scientific Monograph Series No 19. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service. 194 p. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/science/19/contents.htm
French, D. 1999. Aboriginal control of huckleberry yield in the Northwest. In: Boyd, Robert, ed. Indians,
fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University: 31-49. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Gabriel, III. H.W. 1976. Wilderness ecology: the Danaher Creek Drainage, Bob Marshall Wilderness,
Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 224 p. Dissertation. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Garrison, G.A., A.J. Bjugstad, D.A. Duncan, M.E. Lewis, and D.R. Smith. 1977. Vegetation and
environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p.
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/misc/ah475.pdf
Geier-Hayes, K. 1994. Natural regeneration in two central Idaho grand fir habitat types. Res. Pap. INT-
472. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 18 p.
https://archive.org/details/naturalregenerat472geie
Gerwing, J. 2011. Assessing the Effectiveness of Stand Management for Increased Huckleberry
Production. Unpublished report from Portland State University. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
44
Gobin, J., R. Moses, and P. Reed. 2015. Huckleberry Enhancement Project: A cooperative project
between the Tulalip Tribes and the US Forest Service, with monitoring assistance from Western
Washington University staff and students. Darrington Ranger District, the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie
National Forest, Washington. Ppt. poster. [ Jason Gobin, The Tulalip Tribes’ Forestry Manager, Russel
Moses, Tulalip Tribes’ Forestry, and Phyllis Reed, Wildlife Biologist/Environmental Coordinator, USFS].
Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Goldin, A. and T.J. Nimlos. 1977. Vegetation patterns on limestone and acid parent materials in the
Garnet Mountains of western Montana. Northwest Science. 51(3): 149-160. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Gorzelak, M.A., et al. (2012). Community structure of ericoid mycorrhizas and root-associated fungi of
Vaccinium membranaceum across an elevation gradient in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Fungal
Ecology 5(1): 36-45. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Goschke, L. 2009. The Federal Trust Responsibility and Treaty Protected Resources on Ceded Public
Lands: A Huckleberry Case Study. Masters Thesis. Oregon State University. Contact [email protected]
or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Gough, R.E. 1998. Vegetative and reproductive development of the Montana blue huckleberry
(Vaccinium globulare Rydb.). Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology. 73(5): 606-611. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Habeck, J.R. 1967. Mountain hemlock communities in western Montana. Northwest Science. 41(4): 169-
177. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Habeck, J.R. 1968. Forest succession in the Glacier Park cedar-hemlock forests. Ecology. 49(5): 872-880.
Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Habeck, J.R. 1976. Forests, fuels, and fire in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho. In: Proceedings,
Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and fire and land management symposium; 1974 October 8-10;
Missoula, MT. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station: 305-353. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Haeussler, S., D. Coates, D., and J. Mather. 1990. Autecology of common plants in British Columbia: A
literature review. Economic and Regional Development Agreement FRDA Rep. 158. Victoria, BC:
Forestry Canada, Pacific Forestry Centre; British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 272 p.
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/Frr/Frr158.htm
Hall, F.C. 1964. Literature review of huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum) in the Cascade Range of
Oregon. 5p. (Unpublished, on file at USDA Forest Service, Region 6, Portland, OR. Contact
[email protected] for a copy.
Hall, F.C. 1973. Plant communities of the Blue Mountains in eastern Oregon and southeastern
Washington. R6-Area Guide 3-1. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Region. http://ia601300.us.archive.org/20/items/CAT91954348/CAT91954348.pdf
Halverson, N.M; and W.H. Emmingham. 1982. Reforestation in the Cascades Pacific silver fir zone: A
survey of sites and management experiences on the Gifford Pinchot, Mt. Hood and Willamette National
Forests. R-6 Regional Area Guide R6-ECOL-091-1982. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture
45
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 37 p. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a
copy.
Halverson, Nancy M., C. Topik, and R. Van Vickle. 1986. Plant association and management guide for
the western hemlock zone: Mt. Hood National Forest. R6-ECOL-232A. Portland, OR: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 111 p.
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/2374
Hamersley Chambers, F. The ‘Lost’ Gardens: First Nations’ berry cultivation on British Columbia’s
Central Coast. PhD proposal. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/
for a copy.
Hamilton, E.H. 1988. Impacts of prescribed burning on soil-vegetation relationships in the sub-boreal
spruce zone. In: Feller, M. C.; Thomson, S. M., eds. Wildlife and range prescribed burning workshop
proceedings; 1987 October 27-28; Richmond, BC. Vancouver, BC: The University of British Columbia,
Faculty of Forestry: 171-184. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Hamilton, E. and L. Peterson. 2003. Response of vegetation to burning in a subalpine forest cutblock in
central British Columbia: Otter Creek Site. Ministry of Forests, Forest Science Program. Research Report
23. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Hamilton, E.H. and H.K. Yearsley. 1988. Vegetation development after clearcutting and site preparation
in the SBS zone. Economic and Regional Development Agreement: FRDA Report 018. Victoria, BC:
Canadian Forestry Service, Pacific Forestry Centre; British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Lands. 66
p. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Harrington, C.A., J.M. McGrath, Kraft, J.M. 1999. Propagating native species: experience at the Wind
River Nursery. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 14(2): 61-64. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Hawkes, B.C., M.C. Feller, and D. Meehan. 1990. Site preparation: fire. In: Lavender, D.P.; Parish, R.;
Johnson, C.M.; [and others], eds. Regenerating British Columbia's forests. Vancouver, BC: University of
British Columbia Press: 131-149. Available: Oregon State University Valley Library Main
Collection (SD409 .R441 1990 )
Hemstrom, M.A. and J.F. Franklin. 1982. Fire and other disturbances of the forests in the Mt. Rainier
National Park. Quarternary Research 18:32-51. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a
copy.
Hemstrom, M.A., S.E. Logan, and W. Pavlat. 1987. Plant association and management guide: Willamette
National Forest. R6-Ecol 257-B-86. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Region. 312 p. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007404977
Henderson, J.A., D.H. Peter, R.D. Lesher, and D.C. Shaw. 1989. Forested plant associations of the
Olympic National Forest. R6-ECOL-TP 001-88. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 502 p. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/16059
Hickman, J.C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press. 1400 p. Available at Oregon State University Valley Library Main Collection (QK149
.J56 1993
46
Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA: University of
Washington Press. 730 p. Available: Guin Library-Newport Stacks (QK144 .H542 1973 )
Holmson, B. 2006. Mowich Huckleberry Restoration: Gifford Pinchot NF. Huckleberry Workshop
presentation. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Hudec, J. and J. Harris. 2012. Polepatch Huckleberry Enhancement Fuels and Fire Ecology Report.
Cowlitz Valley Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Hulten, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
1008 p. Available at Oregon State University Valley Library Main Collection (QK146 .H788 )
Hungerford, K.E. 1957. Evaluating ruffed grouse foods for habitat improvement. Transactions, 22nd
North American Wildlife Conference. [Volume unknown]: 380-395. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Hunn, E.S. 1981. On the relative contribution of men and women to subsistence among hunter-gatherers
of the Columbia Plateau: a comparison with Ethnographic Atlas summaries. Journal of Ethnobiology.
1(1): 124-134. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Hunn, E.S. and H.J. Norton. 1984. Impact of Mt. St. Helens ashfall on fruit yields of mountain
huckleberry, Vaccinium membranaceum, important Native American food. Economic Botany. 38(1):
121-127. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Ingersoll, C.A. and M.V. Wilson. 1990. Buried propagules in an old-growth forest and their response to
experimental disturbances. Canadian Journal of Botany. 68: 1156-1162. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Jaqua, J.M. 2002. Sherar Burn. Unpublished evaluation and literature review. Contact [email protected]
or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Jimenez, M.V. 2006. Introduction to Selected Berry Enhancement Treatments, Confederated Tribes of
Warm Springs, Oregon. Huckleberry Workshop Presentation. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Johnson, C.G., Jr. and S.A. Simon. 1987. Plant associations of the Wallowa-Snake Province: Wallowa-
Whitman National Forest. R6-ECOL-TP-255A-86. Baker, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 399 p.
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007420342
Johnson, L.M. 1999. Aboriginal burning for vegetation management in northwest British Columbia. In:
Boyd, Robert, ed. Indians, fire and the land in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State
University Press: 238-254. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Jones, E.T. 2000. Non Timber Forest Products: Considerations for Tribal Forestry. Published in the
Proceedings of the Intertribal Timber Council Meeting in Lewiston, Idaho June 2000. Sponsored by the
Institute for Culture and Ecology. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Jones, K.L., G.C. Poole, E.J. Quaempts, S. O’Daniel, and T. Beechie. 2008. Umatilla River Vision.
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) and Department of Natural
47
Resources (DNR). Unpublished document. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and
Greenland. Volume I--checklist. 2nd ed. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 622 p. Available at Oregon State
University: Valley Library Main Collection (QK110 .K37 1994
Kendall, K.C. 1986. Grizzly and black bear feeding ecology in Glacier National Park, Montana. Progress
Report. West Glacier, Montana: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glacier National
Park Biosphere Preserve, Science Center. 42 p. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a
copy.
Kerns, B.K., S.J. Alexander; D. Pilz, and L.H. Leigel. 2002. Assessing commercial understory species
quantity, quality, supply and demand. Pp. 191-198 In: Johnson, A.C.; Haynes, R.W.; Monserud, R.A.;
eds. Proceedings of the Wood Compatability Initiative Workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-563. Portland,
OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr563/gtr563a.pdf
Kerns, B.K., D. Pilz, H. Ballard and S.J. Alexander. 2003. Compatible Management of Understory Forest
Resources and Timber. Pp. 337-382 in: Monserud, R.A., Haynes, R.W., and Johnson, A.C., eds.
Compatible forest management. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht. The Netherlands. This chapter
can be purchased from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-0309-3_12
Kerns, B. K., S. J. Alexander, and J. D. Bailey. 2004. Huckleberry abundance, stand conditions and use in
western Oregon: evaluating the role of forest management. Economic Botany 58:668-678. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Kessell, S.R. and M.W. Potter. 1980. A quantitative succession model for nine Montana forest
communities. Environmental Management. 4(3): 227-240. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Kingery, J.L., J.C. Mosley, and K.C. Bordwell. 1996. Dietary overlap among cattle and cervids in
northern Idaho forests. Journal of Range Management. 49(1): 8-15. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Klebenow, D.A. 1965. A montane forest winter deer habitat in western Montana. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 29(1): 27-33. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Knight, R.R. and B.M. Blanchard. 1983. Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: Annual report of the
Interagency Study Team: 1982. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
45 p. https://archive.org/details/yellowstonegrizz00nati
Kramer, N. B. and F.D. Johnson. 1987. Mature forest seed banks of three habitat types in central Idaho.
Canadian Journal of Botany. 65: 1961-1966. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a
copy.
Kunkel, K.E, L.E. Stevens, S.E. Stevens, L. Sun, E. Janssen, D. Wuebbles, K.T. Redmond, and J.G.
Dobson. 2013. Regional Climate Trends and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment. Part 6.
Climate of the Northwest U.S., NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 142-6, 75 pp. This chapter can be
purchased at: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.5822/978-1-61091-512-0_6
48
Largent, D.L., N. Sugihara, and C. Wishner. 1980. Occurrence of mycorrhizae on ericaceous and
pyrolaceous plants in northern California. Canadian Journal of Botany. 58: 2274-2279. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
LeCompte-Mastenbrook, J. 2011. Native Americans, traditional foods, and the management of public
lands. Univ. of Washington, Department of anthropology. https://anthropology.washington.edu/
LeCompte J. 2015. Restoring Coast Salish Foods and Landscapes: A More-than-Human Politics of Place,
History and Becoming. PhD thesis, University of Washington Department of Anthropology. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Lepofsky, D., N.J. Turner, and H.V. Kuhnlein. 1985. Determining the availability of traditional wild plant
foods: an example of Nuxalk foods, Bella Coola, British Columbia. Ecology of Food and Nutrition. 16:
223-241. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Lillybridge, T.R., B.L. Kovalchik, C.K. Williams, and B.G. Smith. 1995. Field guide for forested plant
associations of the Wenatchee National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-359. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 335 p. In cooperation
with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wenatchee National
Forest. http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps116264/gtr359.pdf
Lindh, B. 2008. Flowering of understory herbs following thinning in the western Cascades, Oregon.
Forest Ecology and Management. 256:929–936. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a
copy.
Littell, J.S. 2012. Northwest. In Vose, Peterson, Patel-Weynand (eds.). Effects of Climate Variability and
Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector. USDA
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-870. Pages:
215-218. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/42681
Lotan, J.E., M.E. Alexander, S.F. Arno (and others). 1981. Effects of fire on flora: A state-of-knowledge
review: Proceedings of the national fire effects workshop; 1978 April 10-14; Denver, CO. Gen. Tech.
Rep. WO-16. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 71 p.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112104053563;view=1up;seq=1
Lyon, L.J. 1976. Vegetal development on the Sleeping Child burn in western Montana, 1961 to 1973.
Res. Pap. INT-184. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 24 p. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007425345
Lyon, L.J. and P.F. Stickney. 1966. Two forest fires: and some specific implications in big-game
management. Proceedings, Annual Conference of Western Association of Game and Fish Commissioners.
46: 181-193. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Mace, R.D. and G.N. Bissel. 1986. Grizzly bear food resources in the flood plains and avalanche chutes
of the Bob Marshall Wilderness, Montana. In: Contreras, Glen P.; Evans, Keith E., compilers.
Proceedings--grizzly bear habitat symposium; 1985 April 30 - May 2; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-207. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station:
78-91. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Mack, C.A. 2003. A burning issue: American Indian fire use on the Mt. Rainier Forest Reserve. Mt.
Adams Ranger District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Trout Lake, WA. In: Fire Management Today.
Volume 63:2 (Spring 2003). Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
49
Martin, P.A. E. 1979. Productivity and taxonomy of the Vaccinium globulare, V. membranaceum
complex in western Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 136 p. Thesis.
http://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/7398/
Mauk, R.L. and J.A. Henderson. 1984. Coniferous forest habitat types of northern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-170. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 89 p.
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&context=barkbeetles
Miller, M. 1976. Shrub sprouting response to fire in a Douglas fir-western larch ecosystem
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Miller, M. 1977. Response of blue huckleberry to prescribed fires in a western Montana larch-fir forest.
Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-188. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 33 p. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007418210
Miller, M. 1978. Effect of growing season on sprouting of blue huckleberry. Res. Note INT-240. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
8 p. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=govdocs_forest
Minore, D. 1972. The wild huckleberries of Oregon and Washington -- a dwindling resource. PNW-143.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 20 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rp143.pdf
Minore, D. 1975. Observations on the rhizomes and roots of Vaccinium membranaceum. Res. Note
PNW-261. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 5 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/37220
Minore, D. 1984. Vaccinium membranaceum berry production seven years after treatment to reduce
overstory tree canopies. Northwest Science. 58(3): 208-212. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Minore, D. and M.E. Dubrasich. 1978. Big huckleberry abundance as related to environment and
associated vegetation near Mount Adams, Washington. Research Note PNW-322. Portland, OR: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 8 p.
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/30427
Minore, D. and A.W. Smart. 1975. Sweetness of huckleberries near Mount Adams, Washington. PNW-
248. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 4 p. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/007424512
Minore, D., A.W. Smart, and M.E. Dubrasich. 1979. Huckleberry ecology and management research in
the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-93. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 50 p.
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/29446
Morrison, P.H. and F.J. Swanson. 1990. Fire history and pattern in a Cascade Range landscape. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-254. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 77 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/5627
50
Murray, T., N. Aflitto, P. Shearer, S.P. Castagnoli. 2017. Spotted wing drosophila in high elevation and
culturally significant Vaccinium species in southwest Washington State and northwest Oregon. Acta
Horticulturae. 1180:479-484.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321341726_Spotted_wing_drosophila_in_high_elevation_and_
culturally_significant_Vaccinium_species_in_southwest_Washington_State_and_northwest_Oregon
Neill, A.R. and K.J. Puettmann. 2013. Managing for adaptive capacity: thinning improves food
availability for wildlife and insect pollinators under climate change conditions. Canadian Journal of
Forest Research, 43(5), pp.428-440. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Neiland, B.J. 1958. Forest and adjacent burn in the Tillamook Burn area of northwestern Oregon.
Ecology. 39(4): 660-671. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Nelson, E.A. 1974. Greenhouse and field fertilization of thin-leaved huckleberry. Res. Note PNW-236.
Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 13 p.
https://ia801007.us.archive.org/21/items/greenhousefieldf236nels/greenhousefieldf236nels.pdf
Noble, W. 1985. Shepherdia canadensis: its ecology, distribution, and utilization by the grizzly bear.
Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT: 28 p. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/
for a copy.
Norton, H.H.; R. Boyd, and E. Hunn. 1999. The Klikitat Trail of south-central Washington: A
reconstruction of seasonally used resource sites. In: Boyd, Robert, ed. Indians, fire, and the land in the
Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University: 65-93. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Ogilve, R. T. 1990. Distribution and ecology of whitebark pine in western Canada. In: Schmidt, Wyman
C.; McDonald, Kathy J., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: ecology and
management of a high-mountain resource; 1989 March 29-31; Bozeman, MT. Gen Tech. Rep. INT-270.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 54-60.
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr270.pdf
Oregon State University. 2016. Northwest berry and grape information network.
http://berrygrape.org/blueberry-pollination/
Orme, M.L. and T.A. Leege. 1976. Emergence and survival of redstem (Ceanothus sanguineus) following
prescribed burning. In: Proceedings, Tall Timbers fire ecology conference and fire and land management
symposium; 1974 October 8-10; Missoula, Montana. No. 14. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research
Station: 391-420. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Oswald, E.T. and B.N. Brown. 1993. Vegetation development on skid trails and burned sites in
southeastern British Columbia. Forestry Chronicle. 69(1): 75-80. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Patten, R.S. and D.H. Knight. 1994. Snow avalanches and vegetation pattern in Cascade Canyon, Grand
Teton National Park, Wyoming, U.S.A. Arctic and Alpine Research. 26(1): 35-41. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
51
Pfister, R.D., B.L. Kovalchik, S.F. Arno, and R.C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. Gen.
Tech. Rep. INT-34. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 174 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/41077
Pierce, J.D. 1984. Shiras moose forage selection in relation to browse availability in north-central Idaho.
Canadian Journal of Zoology. 62(12): 2404-2409. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a
copy.
Pojar, J., and A. MacKinnon, , eds. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast: Washington, Oregon,
British Columbia and Alaska. Redmond, WA: Lone Pine Publishing. 526 p. Available at Oregon State
University Guin Library-Newport Stacks (QK144 .P63 2004)
Potash-Martin, L., J. LeCompte-Mastenbrook, W.K. George, and T. Fuentes. 2008. Management and
Monitoring Plan for the Enhancement of Big Huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum) in Government
Meadows, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Snoqualmie Ranger District,
North Bend, WA. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
632 p. Available at Oregon State University Valley Library Main Collection (QK901 .R38 1934a)
Reichert, C. 1989. Silviculture in grizzly bear habitat. In: Silviculture for all resources: Proceedings of the
national silviculture workshop; 1987 May 11-14; Sacramento, CA. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service: 48-60. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Rice, J. 2012. Salmonberry Timber Sale EA review. USFS Internal Report. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Rice, J. 2012. Huckleberries on the Mt Hood NF. USFS Internal Report. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Rice, J. 2004. Huckleberry Enhancement Opportunities, Mt Hood National Forest. Internal report.
Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Richards, R.T. and S.J. Alexander. 2006. A Social History of Wild Huckleberry Harvesting in the Inland
Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-657. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 113 pp. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Ripple, W.J. 1994. Historic spatial patterns of old forests in western Oregon. Journal of Forestry. 92(11):
45-49. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Ross, R.L. and H.E. Hunter. 1976. Climax vegetation of Montana: Based on soils and climate. Bozeman,
MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 64 p.
https://archive.org/details/climaxvegetation00ross
Ruchty, R. 2008. Special forest products position statement and sustainability analysis for big huckleberry
(Vaccinium membranaceum). Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Unpublished document. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Ruediger, W. and S. Mealey. 1978. Coordination guidelines for timber harvesting in grizzly bear habitat
in northwestern Montana. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]. 44 p. On file at: U.S.
52
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory,
Missoula, MT. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Schoonmaker, P. and A. McKee. 1988. Species composition and diversity during secondary succession of
coniferous forests in the western Cascade Mountains of Oregon. Forest Science. 34(4): 960-979. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Schwartz, J.E., II and G.E. Mitchell. 1945. The Roosevelt elk on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 9(4): 295-319. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a
copy.
Scrivner, J.H. and H.D. Smith. 1984. Relative abundance of small mammals in four successional stages of
spruce-fir forest in Idaho. Northwest Science. 58(3): 171-175. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Shiflet, T.N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range
Management. 152 p. Can be ordered via interlibrary loan.
Smith, J.K. and W.C. Fischer. 1997. Fire ecology of the forest habitat types of northern Idaho. Gen. Tech.
Rep. INT-GTR-363. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 142 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr363.pdf
Spivak, M., E. Mader, M. Vaughan, and N.H. Eusliss Jr. 2011. The plight of the bees. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2011, 45, 34–38. http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/plightofbees.pdf
Starbuck, M., S.J. Alexander, R.P. Berrens, and A.K. Bohara. 2004. Valuing Special Forest Products
Harvesting: A Two-Step Travel Cost Recreation Demand Analysis. Journal of Forest Economics 10: 37-
53. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Stark, N.M. 1977. Fire and nutrient cycling in a Douglas-fir/larch forest. Ecology. 58: 16-30. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Stark, N.M. 1980. Light burning and the nutrient value of forage. Res. Note INT-280. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 7 p.
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_rn280.pdf
Stark, N.M. 1989. The ecology of Vaccinium globulare: seedling establishment and nutrition. In:
Wallace, Arthur; McArthur, E. Durant; Haferkamp, Marshall R., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on
shrub ecophysiology and biotechnology; 1987 June 30 - July 2; Logan, UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-256.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 164-168.
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/vacang/all.html
Steele, R.W. 1984. An approach to classifying seral vegetation within habitat types. Northwest Science.
58(1): 29-39. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Steele, R.W. and N. Stark. 1977. Understory burning in larch/Douglas-fir forests as a management tool.
Western Wildlands. 4(1): 25-29. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Steele, R., S.V. Cooper, D.M. Ondov, and others. 1983. Forest habitat types of eastern Idaho-western
Wyoming. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-144. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
53
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 122 p.
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr144.pdf
Steele, R. and K. Geier-Hayes. 1987. The grand fir/blue huckleberry habitat type in central Idaho:
succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-228. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 66 p. https://archive.org/details/CAT88894263
Steele, R. and K. Geier-Hayes. 1991. Monitoring the effects of post-fire grass seeding on the Lowman
Burn. Unpublished first year progress report. 4 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Steele, R. and K. Geier-Hayes. 1995. Major Douglas-fir habitat types of central Idaho: a summary of
succession and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-331. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 23 p.
https://archive.org/details/CAT10744994
Steele, R., R.D. Pfister, R.A. Ryker, and J.A. Kittams. 1981. Forest habitat types of central Idaho. Gen.
Tech. Rep. INT-114. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station. 138 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr114.html
Stephens, H.A. 1973. Woody plants of the North Central Plains. Lawrence, KS: The University Press of
Kansas. 530 p. Available at Oregon State University Valley Library Main Collection (QK484.G7 S73 )
Stephenson, A. G. 1981. Flower and fruit abortion: proximate causes and ultimate functions. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics 12:253-279. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a
copy.
Stewart, G.H. 1988. The influence of canopy cover on understory development in forests of the western
Cascade Range, Oregon, USA. Vegetation. 76: 79-88. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/
for a copy.
Stickney, P.F. 1985. Data base for early post-fire succession on the Sundance Burn, northern Idaho. Gen.
Tech. Rep. INT-189. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station. 121 p. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d03009810n
Stickney, P.F. 1986. First decade plant succession following the Sundance Forest Fire, northern Idaho.
Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-197. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station. 26 p. https://ia902600.us.archive.org/19/items/CAT31118976/CAT31118976.pdf
Stickney, P.F. 1989. FEIS post-fire regeneration workshop--April 12: Seral origin of species comprising
secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. 10 p. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory,
Missoula, MT. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Thomas and Schuman. 1993. Income Opportunities in Special Forest Products: Self-Help Suggestions for
Rural Entrepreneurs. USDA Forest Service Bulletin 666. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Thompson, S.A. 2006. TEK and tribal-federal collaboration: three cases in the Western U.S.
Masters thesis. Oregon State University. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
54
Topik, C. 1989. Plant association and management guide for the grand fir zone, Gifford Pinchot National
Forest. R6-Ecol-TP-006-88. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Region. 110 p.
https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/16045/Plant%20Association%20Managem
entGuide%20GrandFirAoneGifford%20PinchotNF.pdf?sequence=1
Turner, N.J., R. Gregory, C. Brooks, L. Failing, and T. Satterfield. 2008. From invisibility to
transparency: identifying the implications. Ecology and Society 13(2): 7. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 1996. Early Seral Plant Communities, Pacific Silver
Zone, Mt. Hood NF. R6-NR-TP-1 6-96. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 2000. Mt. Hood Huckleberry Management Plan. Zig
Zag Range District. Draft. Unpublished report. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a
copy.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Salmonberry Timber Sale. Review of Big
Huckleberry Ecology Information. Unpublished Report. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 2005. DM Summitt Thin. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 2009. Sawtooth Huckleberry Restoration: fire and
fuels report. Unpublished report. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 2009. Preliminary Analysis: Sawtooth Huckleberry
Restoration, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Mt. Adams Ranger District and Mount St. Helens National
Volcanic Monument, Skamania County, Washington. Unpublished report. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 2010. Huckleberry Thin Timber Sale. Clackamas
River Ranger District and the Zigzag Ranger District, Mt. Hood National Forest, Oregon.
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/5959
0_FSPLT2_021348.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Plant Guide: Black Huckleberry.
USDA NRCS National Plant Data Center & Oregon Plant Materials Center. Contact [email protected]
or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Unsworth, J.W., J.J. Beecham, and L.R. Irby. 1989. Female black bear habitat use in west-central Idaho.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(3): 668-673. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a
copy.
Vogl, R.J. and C. Ryder. 1969. Effects of slash burning on conifer reproduction in Montana's Mission
Range. Northwest Science. 43(3): 135-147. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
55
Voss, E.G. 1996. Michigan flora. Part III: Dicots (Pyrolaceae--Compositae). Cranbrook Institute of
Science Bulletin 61/University of Michigan Herbarium. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of
Michigan. 622 p. Available at Oregon State University Valley Library Compact Shelves (Q11 .C85 )
Wang, G.A. 2002. Heritage Management in the U.S. Forest Service: A Mount Hood National Forest Case
Study. Society and Natural Resources, 15:359±369. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/
for a copy.
Wang, G.A. and P.J. Jakes. 1996. Legislating the Past: Cultural Resource Management in the U.S. Forest
Service. Society & Natural Resources, 9:3-18. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a
copy.
Waring, R.H. 1969. Forest plants of the eastern Siskiyou’s: their environment and vegetational
distribution. Northwest Science. 43(1): 1-17. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a
copy.
Weisberg, P.J. 1998. Fire history, fire regimes, and development of forest structure in the central western
Oregon Cascades. PhD. Dissertation. Corvallis, OR: OSU. 256p. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Welch, C.A., J. Keay, K.C. Kendall, and C.T. Robbins. 1997. Constraints on frugivory by bears. Ecology.
78(4): 1105-1119. Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Welsh, S.L., N.D. Atwood, S. Goodrich, and L.C. Higgins, eds. 1993. A Utah flora. The Great
Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. Available at
Oregon State University Valley Library Main Collection (QK189 .U85 1993 )
Williams, C.B. and C.T. Dyrness. 1967. Some characteristics of forest floors and soils under true fir-
hemlock stands in the Cascade Range. PNW-37. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 19 p.
http://biodiversitylibrary.org/item/165514#page/3/mode/1up
Williams, C.K.; B.F. Kelley, B.G. Smith, and T.R. Lillybridge. 1995. Forest plant associations of the
Colville National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-360. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 375 p.
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/pnw_gtr360/
Wilkinson, K.M., S.G. Clark, and W.R. Burch. 2007. Other Voices, Other Ways, Better Practices:
Bridging Local and Professional Environmental Knowledge. Yale School of Forestry Publication Series,
Report 14. s Contact [email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Yang, S., et al. 2008. Colonization genetics of an animal-dispersed plant (Vaccinium membranaceum) at
Mount St. Helens, Washington. Molecular Ecology 17:731-740. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Yang, S., et al. 2011. The effect of consumers and mutualists of Vaccinium membranaceum at Mount St.
Helens: dependence on successional context. PLoS ONE 6(10): e26094. Contact [email protected] or
http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
56
Young, V.A., W. Robinette, and W. Leslie. 1939. A study of the range habits of elk on the Selway Game
Preserve. Bulletin No. 9. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, School of Forestry. 47 p. Contact
[email protected] or http://ecoshare.info/ for a copy.
Youngblood, A. and R.L. Mauk. 1985. Coniferous forest habitat types of central and southern Utah. Gen.
Tech. Rep. INT-187. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain
Research Station. 89 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr187.pdf
57
Appendix B: Huckleberry habitat and treatment suitability assessment The assessment of potential locations for huckleberry management included ecological, practical, and sociocultural suitability. This appendix provides process details and a full collection of maps created for this project. Figure B.1. Huckleberry Habitat. Selection includes all stands in the silver fir or mountain hemlock zone.
Western hemlock zone stands were not selected because the best habitat for big huckleberry occurs at
higher elevations. However, the best opportunity for commercial harvest is probably on the low
elevation end of the silver fir zone where it transitions to the western hemlock zone; thus field
validation may note adjacent potential treatment stands not previously identified, where appropriate.
58
Figure B.2. Accessibility: Roads. Subset of stands identified as huckleberry habitat were further refined
to include those offering road access. Road access is a consideration for both treatment equipment and
huckleberry pickers. Road access was assigned to any stand within 150 of a road. Results were similar
buffer distances less than 150 feet but selection noticeably increased for buffer distances beyond 150
feet.
59
Figure B.3. Slope. Slope classes on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
60
Figure B.4. Accessibility: Roads and Slope. Subset of stands identified as huckleberry habitat accessible
by road were further refined to include those with 20 percent slope or less. Road access was selected
before slope based on the rationale that a picker is likely to drive into an area to assess it and then slope
would be a factor in determining whether or not to get out of the vehicle and pick berries. Road access
and slope are often considered together to determine harvest suitability and logging systems. The
breakpoint of 20 percent slope was arbitrarily to represent slopes most appealing to a potential
huckleberry picker.
61
Figure B.5. Habitat, Accessibility, and Age. Subset of stands identified as accessible (roads and slope) huckleberry habitat were further refined to include only stands between the ages of 20 and 100. Huckleberry fields created or maintained in the past 20 years are not likely priorities for huckleberry management. Forest stands over 100 years old are also unlikely candidates for management because regulations limit the ability to remove old trees. Furthermore, huckleberry cover in forest stands over 100 years old is likely to be mostly excluded, and huckleberry shrubs would take a long time to expand and recover post-management.
62
Figure B.6. Management Direction: Northwest Forest Plan. Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Land Use
Allocations.
63
Figure B.7. Management Direction: Land and Resource Management Plan. Gifford Pinchot National
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Management Area Categories.
64
Figure B.8. Management Likelihood. The next factor of feasibility considered was likelihood of active
huckleberry management based on desired conditions and standards guidelines for specific NWFP and
LRMP designations. The two plans overlay one another and the more restrictive direction prevails. See
strategy document (pp. 4-5) and table 1 for a detailed breakdown of management likelihood based on
NWFP and LRMP combined designations.
65
Figure B.9. High and Moderate Likelihood Treatment Areas. Likely treatment areas consider habitat
(silver fir and mountain hemlock zones), road access (within 150 feet), slope (≤ 20%), age (20-100), and
management direction. Distinction between high or moderate likelihood is based on NWFP and LRMP
management designations per table 1.
66
Figure B.10. Historic Huckleberry Picking Areas. Tribal interests have not been formally factored into
treatment area likelihood or prioritization at this stage, but for reference, below is a mock-up of the
sites listed in Appendix D (McClure 2016).
67
Figure B.11. Recommended Huckleberry Enhancement Areas. Recommendations for huckleberry enhancement treatment areas include clusters of stands identified as potential habitat that are both accessible and available for active management. This map is only intended to aid in visualization of spatial distribution of available treatment areas. Cluster selection is preliminary and will be updated following field validation work.
68
Appendix C: Preliminary field validation report
Big Huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum) Restoration Suitability Selection
Model Validation Study; Summer 2017
Amy Boyd and Nathan Reynolds
Background:
The Natural Resources Department (NRD) of Cowlitz Indian Tribe is partnering with the USFS Gifford
Pinchot National Forest (GPNF), Pinchot Partners, and Cascade Forest Conservancy to develop a
strategic huckleberry restoration strategy, principally focused on Big Huckleberry (Vaccinium
membranaceum; NRCS plant code: VAME) on GPNF lands. Huckleberry-dominated areas on GPNF lands
have been declining in areal abundance, and partners desire to see huckleberry habitat persist on the
landscape, huckleberry plants remain vigorous, and huckleberry fruiting remain robust. Partners’
cooperative strategy is designed to identify specific areas on the GPNF lands where forestry
management treatments can be implemented that will improve huckleberry habitat conditions and
productivity. Second, we ultimately intend that the protocols of our huckleberry restoration strategy for
GPNF lands strategies could be applied in ecologically similar regions.
In late 2016 and early 2017, partners developed a GIS-based restoration suitability selection model
(RSSM) for the GPNF based on huckleberry ecology, practical suitability (access and land management
regulations), and sociocultural suitability (traditional ecological knowledge and historic picking areas).
The intent of the restoration suitability model is to identify areas on the landscape of the GPNF where
there is high likelihood for huckleberry-focused restoration to be implemented. Sites with suitable
habitat and access are predicted to be widely distributed throughout the GPNF.
This validation study reports results from field surveys conducted by staff of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe in
the summer of 2017. Surveys were intended to validate the RSSM; first by verifying that the model
successfully identifies forest stands with Big Huckleberry as a stand component, and second by
examining the general relationships between ecological characteristics of the selected stands and Big
Huckleberry robustness, including factors of percent cover and fruiting productivity. Third, field
validation of the forest conditions of the forest stands selected by the model may also suggest what type
of restoration are mostly likely to be proposed as management tools.
Methodology:
In the spring of 2017, cooperating research partners used the RSSM to identify forest stands from the
GPNF GIS layer that were high likelihood for huckleberry restoration. In total, 167 forest stands were
identified (out of 30,314 GPNF stands total). Next, partners used both a GIS “cluster analysis” tool and
intuitive processes to identify 12 “clusters” of selected forest stands. Clusters were landscape areas
where selected forest stands naturally grouped, principally due to huckleberry ecology criteria and
management regulations that were assessed in the RSSM. The total number of selected stands in each
cluster was tallied, and approximately 12% of stands in each cluster were randomly selected for field
validation; some clusters had only a few stands, so we set the minimum number of stands studied in any
69
cluster at 5. Our intent was to make field validation both extensive and equitable, to ensure our field
validation would review a broad representation of forest stands that the model identified as high
likelihood for huckleberry restoration. The stand selection table is included as Appendix A. This
winnowing process resulted in the identification of 167 forest stands for our validation study.
We developed validation sampling protocols that emphasized rapidly collecting easily replicable data.
We opted for ocular estimates and broad categories because it was more important to sample many
stands (extensive sampling) to get a meaningful assessment of model success in identifying forest stands
for restoration than sampling fewer stands more quantitatively (intensive sampling). We focused on
assessing the general huckleberry cover and productivity within the stands. We also recorded general
forest conditions and structure, which we expected to be an important suitability factor for restoration,
but we expected specific tree species and species proportions composing any stand were likely less
relevant. We additionally gathered general ecological data, such as slope and aspect of our sampling
area, for further ecological inquiry, to see if we could better refine our RSSM criteria.
In the summer of 2017, staff of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe’s NRD conducted the validation fieldwork. We
used 2 crews of 2 surveyors. Crews were paired for the entire season and assigned to either the
northern (access via Hwy 12) or southern block (access via FS 90 or Wind River Hwy) of clusters in the
GPNF. Staff attended both a USFS plant identification training session, and a NRD field equipment
training session. Each crew had a leader that had previous experience working on the GPNF gathering
ecological data. Finally, crews were also given several joint walk-through trainings to ensure that crews
collected data and assessed conditions in a uniform manner. Finally, during field implementation, crews
prioritized collecting data in high huckleberry picking use areas, to ensure that fruiting data was
minimally affected by harvest. Crews worked for five weeks collecting data.
During the summer of 2017, we assessed 120 of the 167 stands identified for validation. The 47 stands
that remained unsampled this year were in specific geographic areas. The GPNF north team did not visit
stands north of the Cowlitz River. The south team did not collect data in some small areas of southwest
and a small portion of the central forest. The principal issue with stands that remained unsampled was
access; despite proximity to access being a suitability criterion, some stands required long hikes or bike
rides to reach the stand. Weather and end of our ability to assess fruiting ended our data collection
effort in mid-September.
Inquiry 1: VAME Presence/Absence in stands identified in the RSSM
Our RSSM is principally directed at identifying forest stands suitable for VAME restoration, meaning the
principal purpose of our model is to correctly identify stands where VAME is present. Validation crews
collected percent cover abundance data for VAME using a rapid classification protocol where the survey
crew assigned abundance into 5 broad categories (Table 1).
Table 1: VAME Presence in RSSM-selected GPNF Forest Stands
VAME Percent Cover Classes VAME Classes Number of Plots in Class
0% Absent 17
1-5% Minor 26
5-15% Moderate 35
15-30% Major 27
70
30% plus Dominant 15
Inquiry 1 Results:
The RSSM model correctly predicted VAME presence in 103 of 120 plots (85.8%). The most common
abundance class identified by surveyors was Moderate 5-15%, found in 35 plots (Table 1, Fig. 1). The
model was intended to generally target stands with closing canopy cover, where VAME was persisting in
the shrub layer, and might benefit from restoration actions. We did not want to target stands where
VAME was either absent (where it would be challenging to restore) or above 30% percent cover (where
there is little need for restoration). Although our classed results only allow a limited histogram (Fig. 1),
the shape of our validation results does show that the RSSM model selects stands with VAME that could
be considered “restorable”; the total number of plots between 1% and 30% cover is 88 of 120 sampled,
or 73.3%.
Figure 1: VAME Presence in Validation Stands
Inquiry 2: Huckleberry Spp. Presence/Absence in stands identified in the RSSM
Although our RSSM is principally directed at identifying forest stands suitable for VAME restoration, we
additionally sampled stands for the presence of additional desirable huckleberry species, including
Alaskan Huckleberry/Oval-leaf Huckleberry (V. alaskense/ovalifolium, combined in this study as one
species: Oval-Leaf Huckleberry; NRCS plant code: VAOV) and Red Huckleberry (V. parvifolium; VAPA).
VAOV is typically described as having some described ecological overlap with VAME; VAPA is typically
described as having less ecological overlap with VAME. Validation crews collected abundance data for
all huckleberry species combined using the same classification protocol as in Finding 1.
Table 2: All-Huckleberry Presence in RSSM-selected GPNF Forest Stands
All-Huck Percent Cover Classes All-Huck Classes Number of Plots in Class
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0% 1-5% 5-15% 15-30% 30% plus
Nu
mb
er
stan
ds
in C
lass
ifac
tio
n
VAME Abundance Classes
VAME Presence in Validation Stands
71
0% Absent 4
1-5% Minor 19
5-15% Moderate 39
15-30% Major 33
30% plus Dominant 25
Figure 2: All-Huckleberry Presence in Validation Stands
Inquiry 2 Results:
The RSSM model correctly predicted all-huckleberry presence in 116 of 120 plots (96.7%). The most
common abundance class identified by surveyors again was Moderate 5-15%, found in 39 plots (Table 2,
Fig. 2). Although our classed results again only allow a limited histogram (Fig. 2), the shape of our
validation results does show that the RSSM model identifies stands that have 5-15% all-huckleberry
cover, though our overall result reveals the selection is skewed to the right (higher huckleberry
abundance) than VAME alone (Fig. 1 vs Fig. 2). Overall, our RSSM model selects stands with huckleberry
component that could be considered “restorable”; the total number of plots between 1% and 30% all-
huckleberry cover is 91 of 120 sampled, or 75.8%.
Inquiry 3: Forest Canopy Cover and Structure; VAME Abundance, Shrub Height, and
Fruiting
Previous research has reported that VAME abundance and productivity declines as huckleberry shrubs
are shaded by an overtopping forest canopy. As the canopy closes, less light is available for
photosynthesis in the shrub layer. Validation crews collected canopy cover data in stands using a rapid
classification protocol where the survey crew assigned cover into 4 broad categories (Table 3). Classes
were weighted towards lower cover classes, so we could capture greater nuance in lower cover.
Validation crews also assessed the structure of the forest stand. We used classes that were the same as
classes used by the GPNF in their GIS stand layer information. This information is a qualitative way of
0
10
20
30
40
50
0% 1-5% 5-15% 15-30% 30% plusNu
mb
er
of
stan
ds
in C
lass
ific
atio
n
All-Huckleberry Abundance Classes
All-Huckleberry presence in Validation Stands
72
looking at forest structure, but there may be significant ecological differences, for example, in the way
15% canopy closure might derive from many small pole-sized trees in a stand, versus the way a similar
15% canopy closure might derive from a stand that had few very large but sparsely-distributed trees.
Surveyors could pick from a 7-class list, but ultimately forest structure was only reported by surveyors in
4 classes (Table 3). Unused classes were “grass/forb”, “shrub/seedling/sapling <4 inches”, and “other”.
Table 3: Canopy Cover and Forest Structure Data Classes
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4
Canopy Cover 0%-10% 10%-30% 30%-50% 50% plus
Canopy Structure Open small tree 4-12"
Closed small tree 4-12"
Large tree single-storied
>12"
Large tree multi-storied
>12"
Validation crews also collected classed data on VAME percent cover (abundance; as in Inquiry 1, Table
1), but also collected VAME height and fruiting class during the survey of each stand (Table 4).
Table 4: VAME Percent cover, Height and Fruiting Classes
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6
VAME Percent Cover
0% (Absent) Present – 5% 5%-15% 15%-30% 30% plus Unused
VAME Height 0” (Absent) Present – 12” 12”-24” 24”-36” 36” plus unused
VAME Fruiting Class
0 – no VAME
Present
1 – VAME present, no
fruit
2 – low (less than 5 fruits
per stem)
3 – medium (<5 fruits on most
stems, 5 to 10 on
others)
4 – medium high (<10
fruits/stem on most
stems, 10-15 on
others)
5 – high (<15
fruits/stem on most
stems, 15-20 on
others)
Hypothesis A: Canopy Closure
Based on literature, professional experience and the intent of our RSSM, we examined the data that we
expected to be measures of VAME robustness: percent cover abundance, shrub height and fruiting. Our
general expectation is that these factors will decline as canopy closure increases. For the purpose of this
study, we are focusing solely on VAME. VAOV/VAAL and VAPA fruiting stages classification was also
collected when these species were present in survey sites, but are not analyzed in this study.
Hypothesis A Results:
Because we used a classed system to gather data rapidly, we calculated means by assigning each stand
the midpoint of its reported range: i.e. a forest stand reported with VAME percent cover in the 5% to
15% range was assigned a 10% value. We than averaged these midpoints by canopy cover class. Mean
VAME cover was consistent within the lower canopy cover classes (23.4% in the 0%-10% canopy closure
range and 24.1% in the 10%-30% range) but began to decline as canopy cover increased beyond 30%
73
(17.3% in the 30%-50% range) and declined even further as canopy closure increased over 50% (7.7% in
the 50% plus range) (Table 5, Figure 3).
Because of the classed systems we are unable to calculate error around the means, but the general
trend of the averaged data is robust and in line with our intent to sample forest stands extensively
rather than intensively.
Table 5: Mean VAME Percent cover, Mean Height and Mean Fruiting Class by Canopy Cover
Class
Canopy Cover Classes
Mean VAME %Cover
Mean VAME Height
Mean Fruiting Class
n=
0%-10% 23.4% 25.5” 2.1 16
10%-30% 24.1% 29.7” 2.2 40
30%-50% 17.3% 27.2” 1.8 22
50% plus 7.7% 29.2” 1.0 42
Figure 3: Mean VAME Percent Cover by Stand Canopy Closure Class
Mean VAME shrub height was fairly consistent across all canopy cover classes (Table 5, Figure 4)
averaging 25 to 29 inches. Where no VAME was present in a stand (17 cases), we omitted data rather
than assigning zeros to the height.
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
0-10% 10-30% 30-50% 50-100%
Me
an V
AM
E P
erc
en
t C
ove
r
Stand Canopy Closure Class
Mean VAME Percent Cover by Stand Canopy Closure Class
74
Figure 4: Mean VAME Shrub Height by Stand Canopy Closure Class
Mean VAME Fruiting Class was consistent within the lower canopy cover classes (2.1 in the 0%-10%
canopy closure range and 2.2% in the 10%-30% range) but declined as canopy cover increased beyond
30% (1.8 in the 30%-50% range) and declined even further as canopy closure increased over 50% (1.0 in
the 50% plus range) (Table 5, Figure 5). To reinterpret these means using the classed data, we therefore
observed an average general reduction in fruiting from “Low - <5 fruits/stem” to “VAME Present - no
fruit” as canopy closure increased above 50%.
Figure 5: Mean VAME Fruiting Class by Stand Canopy Closure Class
Hypothesis B: Stand Structure
We secondarily examined data the same data we expected to be measures of VAME robustness (percent
cover abundance, shrub height and fruiting; classes inTable 4) in comparison to stand structure classes.
23.0
24.0
25.0
26.0
27.0
28.0
29.0
30.0
0-10% 10-30% 30-50% 50-100%Me
an V
AM
E Sh
rub
He
igh
t in
Inch
es
Stand Canopy Closure Class
Mean VAME Shrub Height by Stand Canopy Closure Class
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0-10% 10-30% 30-50% 50-100%
Me
an V
AM
E Fr
uit
ing
Cla
ss
Stand Canopy Closure Class
Mean VAME Fruiting Class by Stand Canopy Closure Class
75
Our general expectation is that as forest structure becomes larger and increasingly complex, the
structure will shade out VAME productivity. This analysis is closely related to the canopy closure, but is a
separate and parallel measure. The 4 classes used , presented in a generally expected forest succession
pathway (from early-seral to late-seral) are: “Open small tree 4-12 inches DBH", “Closed small tree 4-12
inches DBH", “Large tree single-storied >12 inches DBH", and “Large tree multi-storied >12 inches DBH”
(Table 3).
Hypothesis B Results:
As with results for Hypothesis A, we calculated means of VAME robustness data by assigning each stand
the midpoint of its reported class range, then averaged these midpoints by forest structure class. In this
analysis, Forest structure classes were less equitably represented, with the class “Large tree single-
storied >12 inches DBH” having only 8 surveys, while structure class “Large tree multi-storied >12 inches
DBH” had 55 surveys. Means of structure classes with fewer surveys are likely less reliable, and again we
cannot calculate errors around our means because of the classed systems we used to rapidly and
extensively gather data.
Mean VAME percent cover was inconsistent within the 4 structure classes, and was lowest in “Closed
small tree 4-12 inches DBH” at 8.6%. VAME percent cover was higher (14.8%) in the “Large tree multi-
storied >12 inches DBH” class, higher still in the “Open small tree 4-12 inches DBH” class at 19.6%, and
highest in the “Large tree single-storied >12 inches DBH” class at 23.1% (Table 6, Figure 6).
Table 6: Mean VAME Percent cover, Mean Height and Mean Fruiting Class by Forest Structure
Class
Forest Structure Classes
Mean VAME %Cover
Mean VAME Height
Mean Fruiting Class
n=
Open small tree 4-12” DBH
19.6% 27.5 2.2 46
Closed small tree 4-12” DBH
8.6% 26.4 1.6 11
Large tree single-storied >12” DBH
23.1% 35.1 2.3 8
Large tree multi-storied >12” DBH
14.8% 28.8 1.7 55
76
Figure 6: Mean VAME Percent Cover by Forest Structure Class
Mean VAME shrub height was also inconsistent within all 4 structure classes, but fairly consistent across
3 classes: “Closed small tree 4-12 inches DBH” at 26.4 inches, “Open small tree 4-12” DBH” at 27.5
inches, and “Large tree multi-storied >12 inches DBH” at 28.8 inches. The inconsistent class was “Large
tree single-storied >12 inches DBH” class at a mean height of 35.1 inches (Table 6, Figure 7). This result
may be ecologically valid, but caution should be used in interpretation as the result may also arise from
the low number of surveys in that forest class.
Figure 7: Mean VAME Shrub Height by Forest Structure Class
Mean VAME fruiting class was also inconsistent across all 4 structure classes, Two classes (“Open small
tree 4-12” DBH” at 2.2 and “Large tree single-storied >12 inches DBH” at 2.3) appear equivalent with
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Open small tree4-12 DBH"
Closed small tree4-12 DBH"
Large tree singlestoried >12" DBH
Large tree multistoried >12" DBH
Me
an V
AM
E P
erc
en
t C
ove
r
Forest Structure Class
Mean VAME Percent Cover by Forest Structure Class
20.022.024.026.028.030.032.034.036.0
Open small tree 4-12 DBH"
Closed small tree4-12 DBH"
Large tree singlestoried >12" DBH
Large tree multistoried >12" DBH
Me
an V
AM
E Sh
rib
He
igh
t in
Inch
es
Forest Structure Class
Mean VAME Shrub Height by Forest Structure Class
77
each other. The other two classes (“Closed small tree 4-12 inches DBH” at 1.6 and “Large tree multi-
storied >12 inches DBH” at 1.7) appear equivalent with each other but rank lower approximately 0.6 of a
class lower than the first pair (Table 6, Fig. 8). To reinterpret these means using the classed data, we
therefore observed an average general reduction in fruiting from “Low - <5 fruits/stem” towards “VAME
Present - no fruit” as tree density increased (“Open small tree 4-12” DBH” versus “Closed small tree 4-12
inches DBH”) and as a more multi-storied canopy developed: (compare “Large tree single-storied >12
inches DBH” versus “Large tree multi-storied >12 inches DBH”).
Figure 8: Mean VAME Fruiting Class by Forest Structure Class
Inquiry 3: VAME and Beargrass (Xeropyllum tenax) competition:
Minore (1972) reported that VAME and Beargrass (Xeropyllum tenax; NRCS plant code: XETE) may have
an inverse competitive relationship, particularly at old burn sites. We collected XETE percent cover
abundance data in the 120 forest stands we surveyed, classed as in Table 7.
Table 7: XETE abundance classes
XETE percent cover classes
0%-5%
5%-15%
15%-30%
30% plus
Inquiry 3 Results:
Mean VAME percent cover was inconsistent within the 4 XETE percent cover classes, but was roughly
equivalent in 3 of the ranges: 13.5% VAME at 0-5% XETE, 14% VAME at 15%-30% XETE and 16.8% VAME
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Open small tree 4-12 DBH"
Closed small tree 4-12 DBH"
Large tree singlestoried >12" DBH
Large tree multistoried >12" DBH
Me
an V
AM
E Fr
uit
ing
Cla
ss
Forest Structure Class
Mean VAME Fruiting Class by Forest Structure Class
78
at 30% plus XETE (Table 8, Fig. 9). The single inconsistent result was a high value of 26.7% VAME at 5%-
15% XETE.
Table 8: Mean VAME percent Cover by XETE Percent Cover Classes
Beargrass percent cover classes Mean VAME Percent Cover n =
0%-5% 13.5% 55
5%-15% 26.7% 24
15%-30% 14.0% 26
30% plus 16.8% 15
Figure 9: Mean VAME Percent Cover by XETE Percent Cover Class
Although our data does show an inconsistency among classes, where one class is higher than the other
three, our results do not show an overall inverse competitive relationship between VAME and XETE as
reported by Minore (1972).
Inquiry 4: VAME and Elevation
The RSSM used elevation as a predictive factor, where we expected VAME abundance to increase above
3000’ elevation. We desired to validate our modeling assumption, and collected elevational data at
each of the 120 stands, and verified that data against the elevational data recorded in the GPNF forest
stand GIS layer. All stands sampled were above 2500 feet in elevation. The data in the layer proved
accurate, and we therefore used the datset from the GIS layer, with along with the VAME percent cover
and VAME fruiting field data (classed as in Table 4) to investigate the general relationships between
VAME productivity and elevation.
We identified a general trend (Figure 10), where VAME percent cover increases with elevation. Stands in
the 0-5% VAME percent cover classification were generally between elevations 2800-3800. Stands in the
5-15% cover classification were between elevations 3000’ and 4500’. Stands in the 15-30% classification
expressed a broader spread, but their distribution averaged approximately 3800’. VAME percent cover
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
0-5% 5-15% 15-30% 30% plus
Me
an V
AM
E p
erc
en
t co
ver
XETE percent cover classes
VAME Mean Percent Cover by XETE Percent Cover Class
79
in the >30% class were not recorded in any surveys below 3500 feet elevation, and their distribution
averaged 4000’ elevation. Data from our surveys validate our RSSM model assumption that elevation is
an effective indicator to predict where VAME percent cover may be higher; we note, however that
elevation is likely a correlational factor rather than causal, and the reason for the increase in VAME
cover at elevation may be decreased canopy cover as expressed in Inquiry 3.
Figure 10: VAME Percent Cover Values as Compared to Stand Elevation.
We similarly examined VAME fruiting classes compared to elevation and identified a similar pattern (Fig.
11), where fruiting class increased with elevation. In general, stands with the highest fruiting classes (4
and 5) were located above 3500 feet in elevation. As with VAME percent cover, this trend is likely
correlational rather than causal, but does validate use of elevation in the RSSM.
Figure 11: VAME Fruiting Classes as Compared to Stand Elevation.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 5 0 0 0
VA
ME
PER
CEN
T C
OV
ER
STAND ELEVATION
VAME PERCENT COVER BY STAND ELEVATION
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 5 0 0 0
FRU
ITIN
G C
LASS
IFIC
ATI
ON
STAND ELEVATION
VAME FRUITING CLASSIFICIATION BY STAND ELEVATION
Fruiting
80
Because our RSSM is focused on restoring the ability to pick huckleberries, we examined this fruiting and
elevation trend in greater detail. We divided the elevational data into three roughly proportional groups
(2500’-3500’, n= 33; 3500’ to 4000’ n=44 and 4000’-5000’ n=50) and averaged stand fruiting classes
(Table 4) by these groups (Fig. 12). This grouped analysis clearly shows the correlational trend of
increased fruiting with elevation.
Figure 12: Average VAME fruiting classification as compared to stand elevation.
Inquiry 5: VAME and Other Predictive Ecological Factors: The RSSM used other ecological factors such Aspect, Percent Slope and Snowpack Depth to identify
stands that might be suitable for VAME restoration.
Validation of Aspect did not yield consistent data. Our survey protocol did not assess a specific plot, but
rather the overall stand characteristics after a stand walk-through. Many of the stands we surveyed
have multiple aspects, and very few stands had a consistent aspect throughout the stand. Therefore, it
was challenging for surveyors to select one aspect that represented the whole stand. We conclude that
the general usefulness of aspect as a predictive factor was not validated by this study, but also was not
disproved. This ecological factor requires continued inquiry, and an alteration of validation methods.
Percent Slope was also a predictive factor used in the RSSM, but was not considered to be a factor that
required validation. No field data for percent slope was collected in 2017 surveys.
Snowpack Depth was expected to affect VAME shrub height and fruiting. We attempted to collect data
using observational methods of lichen lines or other indicators of snow depth, but found surveyors
could not consistently locate these indicators in surveys. While we may still be able to derive Snowpack
Depth based on elevation and precipitation per year, we do not have a direct physical measurement for
our stand selections.
Summary
1.55
1.96
2.52
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
2500-3500 (n=33) 3500-4000 (n=44) 4000-5000 (n=50)
Ave
rage
Fru
itin
g C
lass
ific
atio
n
Stand Elevation
Average VAME Fruiting Classification by Stand Elevation
81
During the summer of 2017, we surveyed 120 of 167 forest stands identified as “high likelihood” for
huckleberry restoration, particularly focusing on Big Huckleberry (V. membranaceum). We collected
data on 15 variables at each stand.
Our intent was to gather extensive data to validate the GIS-based “restoration suitability selection
model” (RSSM) we used to identify stands, first by verifying that the model successfully identifies forest
stands with VAME as a stand component, and second by examining the general relationships between
ecological characteristics of the selected stands and VAME robustness, including factors of percent cover
and fruiting productivity.
We verified that the RSSM does identify stands that are suitable for VAME restoration, as 73.3% of the
stands identified contained greater than 0% and less than 30% VAME percent cover abundance; we
considered 0% as un-restorable and >30% as not needing restoration. In addition, 75.8% of stands
identified by the RSSM were similarly suitable for all-huckleberry restoration, with Oval-Leaf Huckleberry
(V. Ovalifolium; VAOV) contributing to overall huckleberry abundance in theses stands.
We verified that VAME percent cover and fruiting declines as canopy cover rises above 30% and 50%,
though canopy cover appears to have no effect on VAME shrub height.
We verified that VAME percent cover, shrub height and fruiting appear to be complexly affected by
forest structure, where these 3 measures are lowest in the class, “Closed small tree 4-12 inches DBH”
but appear highest in the class “Large tree multi-storied >12 inches DBH”.
Our results did not support the proposal that VAME and XETE have an inverse competitive relationship;
we found no trend between the abundance of these species.
Our results supported the RSSM where forest stands with both greater percent cover and greater fruiting
are found at higher elevations, especially at elevations above 4000’.
We determined that other ecological factors used in the RSSM, such as Aspect, Percent Slope and
Snowpack Depth, were unable to be assessed due to the methods of our survey protocols. We will revisit
protocols to see if these factors can be examined in a different manner.
Finally, many huckleberry pickers anecdotally reported the summer of 2017 was a low-productivity year
for huckleberries, and our field crews did not locate many high-productivity sites in surveys. We need to
meet with partners to discuss how the possibility of inter-annual variability may affect the results of this
validation survey.
Next Steps:
Our team is proposing a more targeted study for summer 2018. We propose to measure the same
features with possibly some additions to study design and slightly modified sampling protocols.
First, we will continue to focus on “clusters” identified in our 2017 study. Nothing in these results
suggests that the clusters do not represent average to better-than-average huckleberry habitat.
Second, we would like to examine the factors of canopy closure and forest structure more thoroughly
and learn if they interact. We propose to use GIS data such as stand age, structure, and
orthophotography to estimate canopy closure remotely. We would then identify stands per canopy
82
closure classification to be sampled. At this time, we estimate adequate budget to randomly sample
between 20 and 25 stands per canopy closure classification. We are considering a more granular break
out for the 2018 data collection details.
Third, we see a correlation between elevation and site productivity, and will discuss with partners if the
minimum elevation in the RSSM should be adjusted.
Fourth, we see a need to revisit protocols for sampled and assessing Aspect and the possible effect it
may have on huckleberry cover and productivity. We may abandon Snowpack Depth as it proved
impossible to asses in the field. We may similarly abandon data collection categories for XETE cover, as
we observed no relationship between VAME and XETE abundance. We do want to retain presence,
cover and fruiting values for other Huckleberry species. We may collect new data categories, such as
tree species or soil samples to provide additional information about huckleberry habitat and ecology in
the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. We anticipate that the 2018 field survey design will be complete by
April 30, 2018. We have a budget estimate of 3-4 weeks with a 2 person crew for summer 2018.
83
Appendix D: Tribal consultation report
Pinchot Partners
Huckleberry Habitat Restoration Project
Gifford Pinchot National Forest
Summary of Initial Phase Tribal Notification, Contacts, and Consultation
Picking huckleberries in the Sawtooth Berryfields, 1937. U.S. Forest Service photograph by Ray M. Filloon.
Rick McClure
Headwaters Historical Services
Trout Lake, Washington
December 2016
84
Project Description Pinchot Partners is a not-for-profit organization representing a diversity of non-governmental Forest stakeholders working in collaboration with the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (GPNF) to accomplish mutual goals in the area of ecosystems management, restoration, and enhancement. Pinchot Partners, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, and the GPNF recently worked together on a huckleberry restoration project in the upper Cowlitz River watershed. The project involved huckleberry habitat enhancement within the Burley Mountain-Pole Patch huckleberry fields, a Traditional Cultural Property of significance to the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and Yakama Nation. Building upon the success of this project, as well as the earlier Sawtooth Berryfields restoration project in the Mt. Adams Ranger District, Pinchot Partners has proposed a new project involving future Forest-wide huckleberry habitat restoration. The Cowlitz Indian Tribe is a primary collaborative partner in the project. As proposed, the project will develop a Forest-wide strategy for long-term, economically self-sustaining huckleberry habitat restoration. More than a century of fire exclusion and ecological succession have resulted in a dramatic decline in huckleberry productivity across the GPNF. The loss of productivity is due to increased shade and competition from overstory trees. Overstory stands need to be reduced to allow more light to reach the understory berry bushes, thereby increasing berry production. The first phase of the project will include a preliminary assessment of areas that are ecologically and culturally suited for huckleberry habitat improvements. Considering the cultural and historical importance of huckleberries to local Native peoples, the involvement of Tribes is essential to the assessment process. Traditional ecological knowledge is a critical factor in determining areas that are culturally suited for huckleberry habitat restoration. The first phase of the project is funded through a grant to Pinchot Partners from the Weyerhaeuser Family Foundation’s Sustainable Forests and Communities Initiative. The planning effort is expected to take about two years. Activities funded through the grant include initial outreach and consultation with local Tribes, an effort that was expected to determine the degree of interest and level of participation of each, as well as to solicit any concerns or recommendations, including suggestions of specific areas for huckleberry habitat restoration. To achieve this, Pinchot Partners contracted with the author of this report to facilitate initial outreach and consultation in collaboration with GPNF line/staff. Direction and Authority Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1563 (Tribal Relations) provides agency direction with respect to coordination and consultation with Indian tribes, and provides a full summary of authorities under Presidential memoranda, Executive Orders, statutes and policies. FSM 1563.02(3) directs agency officials to ensure that proposed or planned activities “honor tribal rights and interests; acknowledge and respect traditional knowledge; [and] integrate tribal perspectives in agency decision making” -- including at the project level. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and implementing regulations (Title 40 C.F.R., parts 1500-1509) require Federal agencies to invite Tribes to participate in the scoping process for projects and activities that may affect Tribes. Additionally, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended and implementing regulations (Title 36 C.F.R. part 800) requires agency officials to consult with Indian tribes concerning the effects of undertakings on historic properties of traditional and cultural importance to them. Many of the historical berry fields located within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest are considered “historic properties of traditional and cultural importance” by local Tribes. Regulations allow for coordinated project scoping and consultation to satisfy requirements under both NEPA and NHPA.
85
Agency policy requires documentation of scoping and consultation with Indian tribes to serve as part of the administrative record in project planning (FSM 1563.03(4)). The purpose of this report is to provide the required documentation, with respect to initial development of the Pinchot Partners Huckleberry Habitat Restoration Project. The content is intended to support the planning process, and while considered part of the administrative record and project analysis file, is exempt from public disclosure. FSM 1563.6 states that “the Forest Service shall, to the full extent allowed under the law, maintain the confidentiality of culturally sensitive information provided by Tribes with the express expectation of confidentiality.” This applies specifically to information provided by Tribes regarding traditional berry fields and associated camps considered “historic properties of traditional and cultural importance” as well as to Traditional Ecological Knowledge regarding the cultural uses and management practices associated with First Foods. Existing Information Summary In preparation for discussions with tribal representatives, we reviewed existing information related to previous consultation on huckleberry management within the GPNF, as well as data from oral histories, ethnohistoric sources, historic maps, and the ethnographic literature specific to traditional huckleberry gathering areas. Much of this material was summarized in an earlier ethnographic site study of the GPNF completed in 1995 by Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Inc. Conducted in cooperation with the Yakama Nation and the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, the project involved extensive ethnohistoric research as well as oral history interviews with tribal elders. Aside from the previously mentioned Burley Mountain-Pole Patch area and the Sawtooth Berryfields, at least 45 separate and distinct historical/traditional huckleberry gathering areas within the GPNF were identified in the preliminary inventory produced by this project. The information came primarily from individuals who identified themselves as Yakama, Klickitat, Wasco-Wishram, Kahmiltpah, Wyampam, Taytnapam, and Cowlitz, groups today affiliated with several Federally-recognized Tribes. Some of the information is also derived from non-Indian observers. The time range for the data spans the period ca. 1853-2015. Many of the gathering areas are identified by traditional place names. The locations of most can be identified, but there are a number of named places in the upper Cowlitz watershed where locations remain uncertain. Nearly one-fourth of the huckleberry gathering areas are within designated Wilderness areas, including Tatoosh Wilderness and Indian Heaven Wilderness, and are therefore unlikely candidates for future treatment actions. Some of the huckleberry areas have only a single reference to use; others are mentioned by multiple individuals. Some of the areas described in early accounts are no longer in use, perhaps due to loss of productivity; others are currently used today by tribal people. Many of the 45 huckleberry areas identified in the preliminary inventory likely qualify as Traditional Cultural Properties under the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. For this reason, the Yakama Nation indicated that the information compiled as part of the ethnographic sites study should be considered confidential, exempt from public disclosure, but made available to land-managing agency staff and personnel involved with project planning. The existing information -- especially that summarized in the 1995 study -- proved important as a vehicle for discussion in the contacts, conversations, and meetings that followed. Summary of Initial Notification, Contacts, and Consultation Initial outreach consisted of letters to each of the Tribes, signed by the Forest Supervisor (Agency Official), introducing the proposed project, requesting participation, and, as appropriate, inviting government-to-government consultation. Courtesy copies of the letters were also sent to key Cultural Resources and Natural Resources staff with each Tribe.
86
The form of the initial outreach to Tribes and the decision of which Tribes to contact was essentially based upon three factors: (1) existing relationships and established consultation protocols; (2) historic precedent; and, (3) treaty rights and historic use. All of the Tribes contacted are Federally-recognized. Letters describing the proposed project were sent to seven Tribes, including the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Nisqually Indian Community, Puyallup Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. Four of the Tribes have treaty-ceded lands within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. The 1855 Treaty with the Yakama ceded lands within the present-day Mt. Adams Ranger District. The Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854 with the Nisqually, Puyallup, and Squaxin Island Tribe ceded lands within the present-day Cowlitz Valley Ranger District. The Cowlitz Tribe did not sign a treaty with the U.S. Government, but their land claims before the Federal Indian Claims Commission included a large area of the present-day Gifford Pinchot National Forest. The Umatilla and Warm Springs Tribes have some demonstrated historic use of the GPNF, but no treaty-ceded lands within the area. The Gifford Pinchot National Forest has established working relationships with both the Yakama Nation and the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each that provides a framework for collaboration and consultation. Under terms of these agreements, meetings to discuss the Pinchot Partners huckleberry restoration project were held with both. The following provides a summary of outreach efforts with each of the Tribes contacted regarding the Pinchot Partners project, including initial notification, subsequent communication, and brief descriptions of meetings. The intent was to complete this initial phase of contacts and project scoping prior to any public notification and outreach. The first public meeting regarding the project is scheduled for early December 2016 [Note: the meeting was postponed due to weather, and will be rescheduled.] Cowlitz Indian Tribe A letter to Chairman William Iyall, signed by Forest Supervisor Gina Owens, and describing the proposed project, was sent on February 11, 2016. Courtesy copies were sent to dAVe Burlingame, Cultural Resources Program Director, and Taylor Aalvik, Natural Resources Program Director. McClure followed up with a telephone call and email messages to Nathan Reynolds, Ecologist for the Cowlitz Tribe. Mr. Reynolds was a principal contact for previous collaboration involving huckleberry habitat restoration, and took the lead in arranging an initial meeting to discuss the Pinchot Partners project. On March 8, 2016, Tracy Calizon, Rick McClure, and Jamie Tolfree, Pinchot Partners Collaborative Coordinator, traveled to Longview, Washington to meet with representatives of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe at the Tribe’s offices. Tribal representatives included Chairman William Iyall, dAVe Burlingame, Taylor Aalvik, Nathan Reynolds, and Amy Boyd, Forest Land Stewardship/GIS coordinator for the Tribe. Tribal representatives indicated that they considered this as a consultation meeting. As the agency representative in this government-to-government consultation, Ms. Calizon has prepared a brief written summary report on the meeting, following Forest Service documentation requirements. The brief summary provided here is drawn largely from that report, which is dated March 28, 2016. Ms. Tolfree provided an introduction that included a summary of the Weyerhaeuser Family Foundation grant objectives. Previous collaborative work with the Cowlitz Tribe involving huckleberry habitat restoration in the Burley Mountain-Pole Patch area was acknowledged, and the role of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe as a partner in the current project summarized by Mr. Taylor and others. A discussion of which Tribes to involve in additional outreach followed, with Mr. Burlingame recommending that we
87
include the Chehalis, Chinook, and Grand Ronde. McClure followed with a summary of some of the previous discussions the GPNF has had with Tribes regarding huckleberry management, and presented the list of traditional huckleberry gathering areas drawn from the 1995 ethnographic sites inventory project. The group talked in detail about the analysis process, with respect to the integration of ecological data with cultural/traditional use data. Ms. Boyd provided a map of huckleberry areas drawn from GPNF GIS data. Discussion included methods to refine the data and combine information to better assess potential areas for future restoration treatments. Data integration should include the use of spatial data on plant associations, archaeological sites associated with huckleberry processing, ethnographic sites, data from historic maps and aerial photographs and look at where these components intersect. Field verification of mapping data through “ground-truthing” was also discussed. Follow-up assignments included data sharing, with some of the data indicated above to be provided to Ms. Boyd and Mr. Reynolds to further initial steps in GIS analysis for the project. A second meeting was held with Cowlitz Tribe staff at their Longview offices on November 21, 2016. Jamie Tolfree represented the Pinchot Partners, and Jessica Hudec, GPNF, ecologist also attended the meeting. Tribal representatives included Nathan Reynolds and Amy Boyd. Mr. Reynolds provided a written statement that summarized major points of discussion as well as anticipated actions, from the perspective of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe. 6 As partners in the project, the Cowlitz Tribe will take a lead in conducting GIS analysis to incorporate spatial data relevant to ecological suitability (vegetation classification, stand age and canopy closure) and feasibility (access factors and land management allocation categories). To prioritize potential areas for habitat restoration, cultural/social data, both Tribal and non-Tribal, will be applied to assess the top number of sites for further study. Mr. Reynolds indicated that possibly 20-30 sites would be identified through this process, and would become candidates for field assessments during the summer of 2017. The Cowlitz Tribe will coordinate the field assessment to collect site-specific ecological data for each location, producing a ranked list, and perhaps a smaller number of sites, based on feasibility. That list will then serve as the basis for the development of specific treatment projects. At this stage in the process, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe has not identified any specific treatment areas. As previously noted, the first public scoping meeting, designed to introduce the proposed project, is scheduled for early December 2016. Representatives of the Cowlitz Tribe, including Taylor Aalvik and Nathan Reynolds plan to participate in that meeting. Primary contact for further consultation: Taylor Aalvik, Natural Resources Department Director Office phone: (360) 575-3306; Email: [email protected] Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation A letter to Chairman JoDe Goudy, signed by Forest Supervisor Gina Owens, and describing the proposed project, was sent on February 11, 2016. Courtesy copies were sent to Johnson Meninick, Cultural Resources Program Director, Kate Valdez, THPO, and Phil Rigdon, Natural Resources Program Director. McClure followed up with a telephone call to Mr. Meninick, and email messages on February 25 to Mr. Rigdon and Mr. Gerald Lewis, Councilman, and Chair of the Cultural Committee. McClure also contacted Mr. David Powell, Archaeologist with the Natural Resources Program, Yakama Nation. Through a series of email messages on March 17 between several parties, a meeting date was set.
88
On March 21, 2016, Tracy Calizon and Rick McClure traveled to Toppenish, Washington to meet with representatives of the Yakama Nation regarding the project. The meeting was held in the office of Councilman Gerald Lewis. Others attending included Johnson Meninick, Councilman George Selam, Casey Barney, Cultural Protection Specialist, Jon Shellenberger, Archaeologist with the Wildlife Program, Noah Oliver, Archaeologist with the Cultural Resources Program, and David Powell, Archaeologist with the Natural Resources Program. Councilman Lewis welcomed the group, and opened the meeting with introductions. Tracy and Rick provided a summary of the proposed project, and some history of previous collaboration between the GPNF and Yakama Nation regarding huckleberry management. McClure also referred to the 1995 GPNF study of ethnographic sites, conducted with the help of Mr. Meninick’s office, noting that the study results had identified some 45 individual traditional berry gathering areas. The question was asked: “Are some of these areas good candidates for future efforts in huckleberry habitat restoration?” Mr. Meninick provided some history of USFS/Tribal interactions pertaining to huckleberry management, noting that his grandfather had in 1933 explained the importance of First Foods to Forest Service officials. He further noted that the importance of First Foods can best be understood as “the law of the land” [tamánwit]. Mr. Meninick talked about some of the earlier experimental treatments in huckleberry habitat restoration, including the use of the Hydro-axe on the Mt. Adams District during the late 1980s, and the visit of Yakama representatives to that project. He said that along with these treatments, the Forest Service needs to do more with enforcement in the berryfields, to ensure there are no conflicts with commercial pickers or people coming into the area to gather mushrooms. Mr. Meninick recounted the earlier efforts of Jerry Martinez on the Mt. Adams Ranger District, noting specifically that Martinez had obtained special funding to hire tribal member Jay Spedis for berryfields enforcement. McClure responded with a summary of the Forest Service efforts in more recent years, including the hiring of Special Forest Products summer technicians to help with compliance in the berryfields. McClure noted that due to the large numbers of Hispanic and Asian commercial huckleberry pickers, the Forest had hired technicians that were bilingual in Spanish and Cambodian to work on education and compliance. Technician duties include educating commercial pickers about treaty rights, with respect to huckleberries, and the Handshake Agreement area. McClure also mentioned David Powell’s efforts in using Title II funding to print brochures about huckleberries and treaty rights in English and in Spanish, and that these were distributed to commercial pickers through the Forest Service. George Selam talked about compliance problems, noting his experiences on a field trip in the summer of 2014 where participants observed several commercial pickers using a single permit issued to one individual, and the buyers’ lack of concern. Mr. Selam said he was working with Ms. Dawn Vivian, an attorney for the Yakama Nation, regarding changes to Washington House Bill 2779 2007-08 to ensure greater compliance regarding commercial huckleberry permits. Mr. Selam expressed concern that the House Bill would require disclosure of information about areas treated – huckleberry gathering locations where restoration was being done, and that this would draw more people to those areas [commercial pickers]. He said that some of the huckleberry areas identified in the 1995 study are likely “family use areas” and that perhaps “they need to stay that way; not be opened up to everyone.” McClure responded that maybe certain family use areas would not be appropriate candidates for restoration treatments because it would attract more people to the area. Jon Shellenberger requested that the Forest Service work through the Tribal Council to protect the confidentiality of some of these family berryfields. He said that analysis should consider whether it is
89
appropriate to let any information out regarding these areas. McClure talked about previous agreements between the Forest Service and Mr. Meninick’s office regarding confidentiality of traditional information, such as that provided by the elders in oral history interviews. McClure affirmed that the Yakama Nation, through Mr. Meninick’s office and/or the Culture Committee, would have the opportunity to review and approve any cultural information, as relates to this project, to appear in any documents that would be released to the public. Mr. Meninick reiterated that the list of 45 huckleberry gathering areas, as derived from the 1995 ethnographic sites study, should be considered privileged information, for internal use by Forest Service or project staff with “a need to know.” Mr. Lewis concluded the meeting with the reminder that Forest Service and Yakama Nation representatives will hold their annual MOU meeting in June, and that further discussion of the Pinchot Partners huckleberry restoration project should be included as an agenda item. The annual government-to-government MOU meeting was held on June 1, 2016, at the Yakama Nation Justice Center, Toppenish, Washington. Gina Owens, Forest Supervisor, GPNF, served as the Agency Official, U.S. Forest Service; Tribal Chairman JoDe Goudy represented the Yakama Nation. Other Forest Service staff and representatives of the Yakama Nation were also in attendance. The huckleberry restoration project was the first discussion item on the agenda. Tracy Calizon provided a summary of tribal outreach for the project to date, and a recap of the March meeting, acknowledging the concerns expressed by George Selam and others regarding the confidentially of culturally-sensitive information. Ms. Calizon affirmed that this information – specifically, the locations of traditional berry gathering sites – is exempt from public disclosure and FOIA requests under a provision of the 2008 Farm Bill. While Chairman Goudy acknowledged that we are “losing our berry fields” as a result of tree growth and canopy closure, he and other Tribal representatives also spoke extensively about other problems associated with huckleberry management, including conflicts related to commercial harvest, permit compliance, and law enforcement issues. With respect to further discussions regarding huckleberry habitat restoration, Tribal representatives indicated that they would reserve further comment until such time as they have an opportunity to review GIS mapping products associated with this project. Primary contact for further consultation: Johnson Meninick, Cultural Resources Program Director Office phone: (509) 865-5121, Extension 4737; Email: [email protected] Nisqually Tribe Forest Supervisor Gina Owens sent a letter to Chairman Farron McCloud describing the proposed project on February 16, 2016. Courtesy copies were sent to Jackie Wall and Annette Bullchild, co-THPOs, and David Troutt, Natural Resources Program Director. McClure followed up with an email message to Ms. Wall on March 4, 2016, which included a project summary, and attached copy of the letter to the Chairman. McClure suggested the possibility of a meeting in Tacoma in conjunction with the Northwest Anthropological Conference (NWAC), later in March. No response was received. A follow-up phone message was left on March 15. McClure talked briefly in person with Ms. Wall on March 22 and March 23 at the NWAC regarding the project. Ms. Wall indicated that she had not had an opportunity to review the information about the project due to a particularly heavy workload. After hearing a brief description of the proposed project, she indicated that information pertaining to traditional use areas in the upper Nisqually River area, possibly including huckleberry areas, had already been provided to the Forest Service archaeologist based at Randle [Kevin Flores].
90
McClure subsequently received an email message from co-THPO Annette Bullchild on March 30, 2016 indicating receipt of the earlier email message and copy of the letter to the Chairman. McClure 9 responded with a summary of his discussion with Ms. Wall and an offer to answer further questions or arrange for a meeting. No response was received. Primary contact for further consultation: Annette “Nettsie” Bullchild, THPO Office phone: (360) 456-5221, Extension 1106; Email: [email protected] Puyallup Tribe A letter to Chairman Bill Sterud, signed by Forest Supervisor Gina Owens, and describing the proposed project, was sent on February 11, 2016. Courtesy copies were also sent to Brandon Reynon, Tribal Archaeologist, and Jeffrey Thomas, Director, Timber, Fish, and Wildlife (TFW) Program. Mr. Thomas responded by email to Tracy Calizon on February 11, indicating an interest in further discussions about the project. He noted, in particular, an interest in the possibility of huckleberry restoration within the Puyallup River watershed. Both Calizon and McClure responded by email, indicating that GPNF lands included a small area at the Puyallup headwaters adjacent to Mt. Rainier National Park, and that the area was at about the right elevation for good huckleberry habitat. Mr. Thomas indicated that he looked forward to further communication on the project. Primary contact for further consultation: Jeffrey Thomas, TFW Program Director Office phone: (253) 405-7478; Email: [email protected] Squaxin Island Tribe A letter to Chairman David Lopeman, signed by Forest Supervisor Gina Owens, and describing the proposed project, was sent on February 19, 2016. Courtesy copies were also sent to Rhonda Foster, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) and Tribal Archaeologist Stephanie Neil. McClure followed up with an email message to Ms. Foster on March 4, 2016, with a project summary, and attached copy of the letter to the Chairman. McClure suggested the possibility of a meeting in Tacoma in conjunction with the Northwest Anthropological Conference (NWAC), later in March. Email response was received on March 7, from Ms. Neil, indicating the possibility of a lunch meeting on March 23 at NWAC that would include Rhonda Foster, Margaret Henry (Cultural Resources), Stephanie Neil, and Kevin Lyon, an attorney with the Tribe’s Legal Department, who had expressed an interest in the project due to the Tribe’s involvement with other hunting and gathering issues. Due to scheduling conflicts, the meeting did not take place. McClure did meet in person briefly with Ms. Neil, who indicated a phone call to Mr. Lyon would be the best follow-up course of action. Following initial email contact, McClure spoke with Kevin Lyon by telephone on March 30, 2016 regarding the possibility of further consultation on the huckleberry habitat restoration project. McClure noted that a letter about the project had been sent to the Tribal Chairman in February, and asked if Mr. Lyon had seen that letter. Lyon confirmed that he had. McClure gave a brief description of the proposed project, and mentioned the previous and ongoing work with the Sawtooth and Burley-Pole Patch huckleberry restoration projects. Mr. Lyon stated that the Squaxin Island Tribe is very interested in huckleberry restoration, and, with the mention of the Burley-Pole Patch project, stated that the Randle area is within the ceded lands of the Tribe. Mr. Lyon said that tribal elders have expressed more interest in huckleberries recently, and said that he would like to have further discussions about the proposed restoration project once he has had an opportunity to discuss the project with the elders. He said that he expects the response from elders to
91
“run the spectrum” from those who do not want to see any attention drawn to their favorite picking areas to those who are willing to support treatments to improve productivity in the areas they are familiar with. Mr. Lyon offered to call back within a week or two, after he had talked with the elders. McClure indicated that he would provide contact information for Ms. Tracy Calizon, in the event of a call after April 7. A subsequent letter from Mr. Lyon sent in June 2016 reiterated the Tribe’s particular interest in huckleberry habitat restoration activities within the upper Cowlitz River watershed. Primary contact for further consultation: Kevin Lyon, Attorney, Legal Department Office phone: (360) 432-1771, Extension 1; Email: [email protected] Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) A letter to Chairman Gary Burke, signed by Forest Supervisor Gina Owens, and describing the proposed project, was sent on February 11, 2016. Courtesy copies were also sent to Teara Farrow-Ferman, Cultural Resources Protection Program Manager, and Eric Quaempts, First Foods Program Manager. McClure followed up with telephone messages to Ms. Farrow-Ferman and to Katherine Dickson, Archaeologist for the CTUIR, on March 15. Ms. Farrow-Ferman responded by telephone on March 23, indicating that the CTUIR have a strong interest in the huckleberry restoration project. She indicated that Shawn Steinmetz, Archaeologist/Ethnographer for the CTUIR, would be assigned to follow-up communication regarding the project, but that he was in South Africa until April 12. Ms. Farrow-Ferman mentioned that Steinmetz had recently completed an extensive oral history project with elders that involved identification of traditional gathering areas, including huckleberry picking sites. In the phone call, Ms. Farrow-Ferman noted that representatives of the CTUIR would be attending the Northwest Anthropological Conference (NWAC) in Tacoma, and specifically recommended connecting with Dr. Jennifer Karson Engum, cultural anthropologist and ethnographer for CTUIR. Dr. Engum was involved in the oral history project that had included identification of huckleberry gathering areas, and is one of the co-authors of a recently published book on the traditional land use of CTUIR groups. McClure contacted Carrie Miller, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) for CTUIR, on March 25, 2016, at NWAC, who introduced Dr. Engum. McClure briefly summarized the huckleberry restoration project and mentioned that there would be follow-up communication with Shawn Steinmetz at a later date. McClure and Steinmetz met on November 16, 2016 at the Nixyáawii Governance Center, Umatilla Indian Reservation, to further discuss the project. Mr. Steinmetz provided a summary of the recent CTUIR oral history project that focused on huckleberry gathering by tribal members. The project involved “micro-interviews” with 100-125 tribal members, who were asked a series of questions, such as: “Where did you gather berries? and, “Have you encountered any obstacles in huckleberry gathering? Interviewees primarily spoke of berry gathering on the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, but some individuals also mentioned the collection of berries within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Mr. Steinmetz offered to review the interview content for more specific information. He did, however, recall that the areas mentioned were primarily in the Sawtooth Berryfields “around Indian Heaven.” Mr. Steinmetz described berry gathering by Umatilla tribal members on the GPNF as exercise of “usual and accustomed” gathering rights under terms of their treaty with the Federal government. He acknowledged the difference between this and the reserved rights of the Yakama on their ceded lands, which include the Sawtooth Berryfields, noting that the Umatilla defer to treaty tribes in issues involving ceded lands. Mr. Steinmetz noted that the restoration of First Foods is an important priority for CTUIR, and the principal mission of their First Foods Program, so they are generally in support of efforts like that proposed by Pinchot Partners. He indicated that CTUIR would like to stay informed about the project, and said that he would ask the tribal council if they would like to enter into formal government-
92
to-government consultation. He also requested copies of the Environmental Assessment for the Sawtooth Berryfields restoration project, and any information available on post-treatment monitoring. Primary contact for further consultation: Shawn Steinmetz, Archaeologist/Ethnographer Office phone: (541) 276-3447; Email: [email protected] Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation A letter to Chairman Eugene Green, Jr., signed by Forest Supervisor Gina Owens, and describing the proposed project, was sent on February 16, 2016. A courtesy copy was also sent to Robert “Bobby” Brunoe, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), who is also the Natural Resources Program Director for CTWSR. On March 17, 2016, McClure received an email message from Ms. Maralee Wernz, Archaeologist for CTWSR, requesting follow-up contact with Ms. Roberta Kirk. In her email message, Ms. Wernz mentioned that Ms. Kirk would like to arrange a field visit. McClure provided a follow-up email response email to Ms. Kirk on March 18, with a summary of the proposed project. The message noted that all of the huckleberry areas within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest were still under snow and currently inaccessible, but that a field trip might be possible later in the season. No response to the March 18 message was received, and there has been no follow-up communication. Primary contact for further consultation: Roberta Kirk, THPO Assistant Office phone: (541) 533-3465; Email: [email protected] Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon At the request of the Cultural Resources Program Director, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, contact was made with David Harelson, THPO for the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. McClure talked briefly with Mr. Harelson about the project on March 25, 2016, at the Northwest Anthropological Conference, in 12 Tacoma, Washington. Mr. Harelson affirmed Grand Ronde interest in the project due to the historic and traditional use of the southwestern portion of the GPNF by the Cascades people, including families from settlements on the Washington side of the Columbia River. However, he said that recent action by the current tribal council involving a decision for disenrollment of all descendants of a prominent Cascades chief has made it difficult to pursue any issues that may relate to Cascades traditional uses, including huckleberry habitat restoration. Mr. Harelson is actively working on this issue with respect to the restoration of a traditional huckleberry gathering area at Mt. Hebo, within the Siuslaw National Forest. Recommendations for Further Coordination As planning continues for this project, there are several points at which further communication and coordination with Tribes is appropriate, desired, and in some cases explicitly requested. For the Yakama Nation, this point will come in the next several months, when a preliminary map of potential huckleberry habitat restoration areas is completed. Representatives of the Cowlitz Tribe have suggested coordination and consultation with all of the interested Tribes once this map is available. Additionally, Forest Service representatives recommend that communications regarding the review of the map also include an invitation to the Tribes to visit specific sites during the summer of 2017, while field assessments are in progress. On the basis of general locations and environment, it is expected that most field locations will be accessible by mid-July, 2017, and a coordinated field trip for Tribes could be scheduled for late July or August. Another juncture for additional coordination and consultation will be at the point when the analysis of field data are complete, and the project has generated a prioritized list of proposed treatment areas, possibly during the fall of 2017.
93
Finally, as was discussed in all of the contacts with Tribes conducted to date, additional opportunities for consultation will occur as individual projects are developed for specific treatment areas, as was the case with the previous Sawtooth Berryfields restoration project and the Burley Mountain-Pole Patch restoration project. In the case of the former, representatives of the Yakama Nation served formally as members of the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) through the NEPA planning process and the development of the Environmental Assessment. As individual treatment projects are developed, affected Tribes will be invited to consult, under the requirements of NEPA and NHPA, including the provisions of Section 106 of the latter, which is specifically oriented toward the protection of culturally significant properties [e.g., traditional berry fields]. Formal government-to-government consultation should be focused on those Tribes with treaty reserved rights, or, as in the case of the Cowlitz Tribe, historical land claims. In this initial phase of planning, Tribes have been invited to participate to the extent of their interest and ability, as consultants or partners in the development, design, and eventual implementation phases of the project. While the Cowlitz Indian Tribe has taken a lead partnership role in this effort, there is ample opportunity for the involvement of other Tribes as the project gains momentum. _______________ December 15, 2016 Appendices removed
94
Appendix E. Huckleberry restoration treatment information
Huckleberry Restoration Treatments in Western Washington and Northwest Oregon
Unit Forest District Partners Treatment Method Residual Canopy Cover
Fuel Treatment
Acres Year Treated
Year Monitored
Sawtooth 1B GPF Mount St. Helens
Yakama Nation
Moderate retention regeneration
Ground-based machinery
30% Pile and burn near roads
9 2014
Sawtooth 2 GPF Mount St. Helens
Yakama Nation
Commercial thinning
Ground-based machinery; over snow logging
50% Underburn 19 2014
Sawtooth 3 GPF Mount St. Helens
Yakama Nation
Commercial thinning
Ground-based machinery and skyline
30-50% Pile and burn near roads
142 2014
Sawtooth 4 GPF Mt. Adams Yakama Nation
Commercial thinning
Ground-based machinery
40% Pile and burn near roads
56 pending
Sawtooth 5 GPF Mt. Adams Yakama Nation
Moderate retention regeneration
Ground-based machinery
30% Pile and burn
51 2014
Sawtooth 8 GPF Mt. Adams Yakama Nation
Young stand thinning
Hand tools 15-20% Lop and scatter
182 1990s; 2010
Sawtooth 9 GPF Mt. Adams Yakama Nation
Young stand thinning
Hand tools 15-20% Lop and scatter
166 1990s; 2012
Sawtooth 10A
GPF Mt. Adams Yakama Nation
Commercial thinning
Ground-based machinery
20-30% Underburn 55 1990s; 2014
Sawtooth 10B
GPF Mt. Adams Yakama Nation
Commercial thinning
Ground-based machinery
35-50% Pile and burn near roads
59 2014
Sawtooth 11A
GPF Mount St. Helens
Yakama Nation
Commercial thinning
Ground-based machinery; over snow logging
20-30% None 50 2014
Sawtooth 11B
GPF Mount St. Helens
Yakama Nation
Young stand thinning
Mastication 15-20% None 17 2010
95
Sawtooth 11C
GPF Mount St. Helens
Yakama Nation
Young stand thinning
Mastication 15-20% None 15 2010
Sawtooth 11D
GPF Mount St. Helens
Yakama Nation
Young stand thinning
Hand tools or ground-based machinery
15-20% None 3 2009
Sawtooth 11E
GPF Mount St. Helens
Yakama Nation
Young stand thinning
Hand tools or ground-based machinery
10-30% Underburn 17 2010
Sawtooth 12 GPF Mount St. Helens
Yakama Nation
Young stand thinning
Hand tools 10-30% Underburn 271 2011 2011, 2012
Polepatch 1 GPF Cowlitz Valley
Cowlitz Tribe, Pinchot Partners
Light thinning Ground-based machinery; skyline
40% Pile and burn near roads
18 pending
Polepatch 2 GPF Cowlitz Valley
Cowlitz Tribe, Pinchot Partners
Heavy thinning Ground-based machinery; skyline
15% Pile and burn
111 pending
Polepatch 3 GPF Cowlitz Valley
Cowlitz Tribe, Pinchot Partners
Moderate thinning
Ground-based machinery
30% Slash and burn
109 pending
Polepatch 4 GPF Cowlitz Valley
Cowlitz Tribe, Pinchot Partners
Moderate thinning
Hand tools or ground-based machinery
30% Pile and burn
26 pending
Polepatch 5 GPF Cowlitz Valley
Cowlitz Tribe, Pinchot Partners
Moderate thinning
Aerial or ground ignition
30% Underburn 98 pending
Polepatch 6 GPF Cowlitz Valley
Cowlitz Tribe, Pinchot Partners
Moderate thinning
Ground-based machinery
30% Slash and burn
141 pending
Polepatch 7 GPF Cowlitz Valley
Cowlitz Tribe, Pinchot Partners
Heavy thinning Ground-based machinery
15% Pile and burn
110 pending
Polepatch 8 GPF Cowlitz Valley
Cowlitz Tribe, Pinchot Partners
Light thinning Ground-based machinery
40% Pile and burn near roads
74 pending
96
Polepatch 9 GPF Cowlitz Valley
Cowlitz Tribe, Pinchot Partners
Heavy thinning Ground-based machinery
15% Pile and burn
16 pending
Polepatch 10
GPF Cowlitz Valley
Cowlitz Tribe, Pinchot Partners
Moderate thinning
Aerial or ground ignition
30% Underburn 10 pending
Polepatch 11
GPF Cowlitz Valley
Cowlitz Tribe, Pinchot Partners
Moderate thinning
Ground-based machinery
30% Slash and burn
33 pending
Polepatch 12
GPF Cowlitz Valley
Cowlitz Tribe, Pinchot Partners
Moderate thinning
Aerial or ground ignition
30% Underburn 24 pending
Mowich A GPF Mt. Adams
Commercial thinning
Ground-based machinery
25-30% Underburn 43 2009; not burned
2007, 2010, 2012, 2014
Mowich B GPF Mt. Adams
Commercial thinning
Ground-based machinery
25-30% Underburn 13 2010; not burned
2007, 2010, 2012, 2014
Lodgeberry GPF Cowlitz Valley
Yakama Nation
Pre-commercial thinning
Hand tools 50 TPA Lop and scatter
156 2008
Cowlitz GPF Cowlitz Valley
Cowlitz Tribe, Pinchot Partners
Pre-commercial thinning and girdling
Hand tools 15% Lop and scatter
152 2012
Summit Thin MHF Clackamas River
Warm Springs
Commercial thinning
Ground-based logging over snow
30%
68 2007 2008, 2009
Jelly Timber Sale
MHF Clackamas River
Commercial thinning
Ground-based logging over snow
85-95 ft basal area
589 2012-
2015
Pie Timber Sale
MHF Clackamas River
Commercial thinning
Ground-based logging over snow
85-95 ft basal area
553 2012-
2015
97
Huck Timber Sale
MHF Zigzag
Commercial thinning
Ground-based logging over snow
85-95 ft basal area
608 2012-
2015
Jam Timber Sale
MHF Zigzag
Commercial thinning
Ground-based logging over snow
85-95 ft basal area
413 2012-
2015
Wolf Camp Butte
MHF Zigzag
Commercial thinning
Clear cut and burn
unknown broadcast burn
0 1973
Wolf Camp Butte
MHF Zigzag
Herbicide Herbicide application (2,4,D) ester/diesel blend
unknown broadcast burn
0 1973
Wolf Camp Butte
MHF Zigzag
Herbicide Herbicide application (2,4,D) ester/diesel blend
unknown broadcast burn
0 1973
Wolf Camp Butte
MHF Zigzag
Non-commercial
Bulldoze and burn
unknown burn 0 1973
Wolf Camp Butte
MHF Zigzag
Herbicide Herbicide application (karbutilate)
unknown none 0 1975
Wolf Camp Butte
MHF Zigzag
Fungicide Phellinus inoculation of trees
unknown none 0 1973
Salmonberry Timber sale Unit 5
MHF Zigzag
Commercial thinning
Ground-based machinery
10% unknown 0 mid 1990s - 2004
Mica MHF Hood River
Salvage Ground-based machinery
unknown
5 1998
Mt Defiance Timber Sale
MHF Hood River
Commercial thinning
Ground-based machinery
unknown
200 1996
Copper/Tin Timber Sale
MHF Hood River
Commercial thinning
Ground-based machinery
unknown
500 1997
98
Crystal Timber Sale
MHF Hood River
Commercial thinning
Ground-based machinery
unknown
100 1995
Bronze Timber Sale
MHF Hood River
Commercial thinning
Ground-based machinery
unknown
600 1998
Talc EA MHF Hood River
Commercial thinning
Ground-based machinery
unknown grapple slash pile and burn
50 1999
Cob Timber Sale
MHF Clackamas River
Commercial thinning
Ground-based machinery
20-30%
103 2017-2018
Sweet Home Site 1
WIL Sweet Home
Lop and scatter Hand tools unknown none 12 2007, 2010
Scar Mountain1
WIL Detroit
Lop and scatter Hand tools unknown none 0 TBD
Scar Mountain2
WIL Detroit
Lop and scatter Hand tools unknown none 0 TBD
Twin Meadows
WIL Detroit
Lop and scatter Hand tools unknown none 0 TBD
Outerson Mountain
WIL Detroit
Lop and scatter Hand tools unknown none 0 TBD
Collawash Mountain
WIL Detroit
Lop and scatter Hand tools unknown none 0 TBD
Segelsen Ridge
MBS Darrington Tulalip Tribe Pre-commercial thinning
Hand tools <30% pile and burn
0 2010-2014
2010-2014
99
Appendix F. Report on Initial Huckleberry Monitoring Findings
Huckleberry Monitoring in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest
Shiloh Halsey and Amanda Keasberry
Introduction
This report outlines our initial findings for the huckleberry surveys of 2017 in the Gifford Pinchot
National Forest. The objectives of this project are to: (1) survey units within the Pole Patch and Sawtooth
huckleberry treatment areas in order to evaluate the effectiveness of different silvicultural treatments in
enhancing production and growth of big huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum) and (2) engage
community members, stakeholders, and volunteers in monitoring activities. Our goal is to aid ecologically
similar areas throughout the Pacific Northwest in being able to adopt effective and proven huckleberry
restoration strategies. The overarching monitoring question we aim to answer is: To what extent did
vegetation management, including thinning and burning, impact huckleberry plant abundance, fruit
production, plant height, and ecosystem characteristics within the plot and unit?
This work has been carried out in partnership with Pinchot Partners under grants from the Weyerhaeuser
Family Foundation and the Rural Advisory Council. Jeff Gerwing (Portland State University), Jessica
Hudec (U.S. Forest Service), and other staff members of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest assisted us
in planning and refining this work. Volunteer citizen scientists have been instrumental in helping us
collect data in the field, with community members offering over 423 volunteer hours in service of the
project. This report is a preliminary report for the project. A publishable report will be completed at the
conclusion of year two (December 2018).
Survey areas
Figure 1 shows the area of study. We focused on two main project areas, Pole Patch and Sawtooth, both
located in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Although the ecological conditions in these two areas are
slightly different and huckleberry growth responses can be expected to vary in ways that are unrelated to
treatment type, these areas do share many ecological characteristics and are in close enough proximity to
allow us to consider their results together. We explore the results both separately and together.
Three units within Pole Patch (Pinto 7, Pinto 8, and Pinto 9) and seven units within Sawtooth (Sawtooth
3, Sawtooth 5, Sawtooth 8, Sawtooth 9, Sawtooth 10A, Sawtooth 11A, and Sawtooth 12) had undergone
treatment to promote the growth of huckleberries. These were the focus of our survey efforts in 2017,
with the exception of Sawtooth 12, which has not yet been surveyed. Most of the units we surveyed were
treated (thinned) between 2010 and 2014. Units in the Veta project area (a second project area in Pole
Patch) and units 6 and 11 in the Pinto project area had not yet been treated. These were not visited in 2017
but will likely be surveyed in 2018 to collect baseline data for future monitoring efforts. In addition to
surveying plots in these project areas, we also monitored management units treated under a non-
commercial thinning prescription (referred to as NCT) that was intended to promote huckleberry growth
(with spacing between 16 x 16 and 18 x 18). We also surveyed control plots, which were located in
comparable forest areas next to huckleberry treatment areas. In total, we visited 147 plots in 2017. Our
goal is to visit 200 plots in 2018.
100
101
Survey protocol
Our survey protocol is outlined in Appendix A. In short, we aimed to investigate how the abundance of
huckleberry plants, fruit production, and plant height were related to treatment variables such as treatment
prescription, canopy cover, and soil disturbance. We also looked at the growth of other Vaccinium
species, overall biodiversity, and fruit ripeness. At all survey sites, we monitored huckleberry and
ecological characteristics in 100m2 plots and captured fine-scale observations of huckleberry growth in
2m2 subplots.
Results
Tables 1-3 show the percent ground coverage of huckleberry in all plots.
The figures and tables below highlight observations at the unit level. Figures 2 and 3 (and associated
tables 4 and 5) show the canopy cover and percent huckleberry cover measured at each unit in the Pinto
project area.
Units Canopy
Cover
Range in
Canopy
Cover
Plots
(n)
---Percent---
Pinto Control 69.20 48 – 88 10
Pinto NCT 556 33.90 5 – 65 10
Pinto 8 31.73 6 – 68 11
Pinto 9 27.00 0 – 90 16
Pinto 7 24.30 0 – 61 33
Pinto NCT 543 22.86 0 – 48 7
Table 4
Figure 2
Table 1: Pinto
Table 2: Sawtooth
:Sawtooth
Table 3: Pinto & Sawtooth
102
Figures 4 and 5 below show the average height of huckleberry and amount of fruit production inthe
various Pinto units.
Units
Average
Huckleberry
Cover
Range in
Huckleberry
Cover
Plots
(n)
--- Percent ---
Pinto NCT 543 34.14 0 - 60 7
Pinto NCT 556 21.00 0 - 75 10
Pinto 8 19.45 0 - 60 11
Pinto 7 16.18 0 - 50 33
Pinto Control 7.40 0 - 10 10
Pinto 9 4.94 0 - 15 16
Table 5
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
103
Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9 and tables 6 and 7 outline the initial unit-level findings for the Sawtooth project
area.
Units
Mean
Canopy
Cover
Range in
Canopy
Cover
Plots
(n)
---Percent---
Sawtooth 3 45.30 20 – 74 10
Sawtooth NCT 40.40 5 – 81 5
Control 32.65 28 – 56 11
Sawtooth 11A 29.18 0 – 74 11
Sawtooth 10A 27.14 0 – 44 7
Sawtooth 8 14.80 2 – 32 5
Sawtooth 9 13.09 0 – 40 11
Units
Mean
Huckleberry
Cover
Range in
Huckleberry
Cover
Plots
(n)
--- Percent ---
Sawtooth 9 60.91 35 – 85 11
Sawtooth NCT 32.60 3 – 60 5
Sawtooth 3 30.10 1 – 60 10
Sawtooth 10A 25.00 0 – 35 7
Control 21.55 1 – 75 11
Sawtooth 8 18.80 2 – 60 5
Sawtooth 11A 10.09 1 – 35 11
Figure 6
Table 6
Figure 7
65
Table 7
104
Figure 8
65
Figure 9
65
105
Figures 10, 11 and 12 below explore the plot-level relationships where there were notable correlations
between treatment (canopy cover and soil disturbance) and huckleberry (percent cover, shrub height, and
fruit production). This was done by combining results from all plots.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
None Low Moderate Severe
VA
ME
% C
over
Soil Disturbance Classes
Pinto & Sawtooth: Mean Huckleberry Cover
by Soil Disturbance
0-10% 10-30% 30-50% 50-100%
VA
ME
Hei
ght
Cla
ss
Canopy Cover Class
Pinto & Sawtooth: Mean Huckleberry Height
by Percent Canopy Cover
<0.1 m
0.1–0.5 m
0.5–1 m
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0-10% 10-30% 30-50% 50-100%
VA
ME
% C
over
Canopy Cover Class
Pinto & Sawtooth: Mean Huckleberry Cover
by Percent Canopy Cover
106
Figure 13: Huckleberry % Cover by plot averaged by unit prescription type. P = Pinto; S = Sawtooth.
GBM = Ground-based machinery; OSL = Over-snow logging. (x-x%) = average residual canopy cover
for each prescription.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
GBM (15%)
Control
GBM & OSL (20-30%)
GBM (15%)
Hand tools (15-20%)
GBM (40%)
NCT
Control
GBM (20-30%)
GBM & skyline (30-50%)
NCT
NCT
Hand tools (15-20%)
P:9
PS
:11
AP
:7S
:8P
:8P
: 5
56
SS
:10
AS
:3S
P:
543
S:9
Mean Hucklebery % Cover based on Prescription Type
107
Discussion
These results and observations are the initial findings from year one of a two-year study and are not
intended to be conclusive or final.
Huckleberry cover and canopy cover
Canopy cover was divided into categories (0-10%, 10-30%, 30-50%, and 50-100%) in the analysis phase
of the study to align with management protocols likely to be used in Forest Service projects. Overall,
there was not a strong relationship between canopy cover and huckleberry percent cover. Although not
statistically significant, the results show that huckleberry cover was lower when canopy cover was greater
than 50%, and that the optimal canopy cover category for huckleberry was 30-50%.
When looking at the final results for each unit (averaging the plot data within each), the highest
huckleberry cover percentages (>30% cover) were found in Sawtooth 9, Pinto NCT 543, Sawtooth NCT,
and Sawtooth 3. Interestingly, all the plots in Sawtooth 9 that we monitored had at least a 35%
huckleberry cover. Pinto 9 and Sawtooth 11A had the lowest huckleberry cover (>10% cover).
The NCT units in both Pinto and Sawtooth yielded some of highest amounts of huckleberry percent
cover, fruit production, and plant height. But, some of the NCT units were exceedingly tough to navigate
through due to fallen logs and short, small stumps cut at angles. So, either treatment would need to vary
in order to support fruit gathering or more time from treatment would need to elapse before huckleberry
picking would be practical for humans or other mammals.
Fruit production and plant height
Huckleberry plants can persist under a dense tree canopy, but fruit production can be hindered. In year
one, though, we did not observe a strong relationship between canopy cover and fruit production.
Sawtooth 9 had the highest fruit production overall. Pinto NCT 543 had the highest fruit production and
tallest huckleberry shrubs in the Pinto project area. Between Sawtooth and Pinto, Sawtooth had the most
fruit production, but due to the fact that fruiting was low overall in 2017, neither site produced much fruit.
The overwhelming majorty fell into the ‘low’ catergory of fruit production. The seasonal and annual
variation in fruit production is part of the reason this study puts more emphasis on percent huckleberry
cover, as it is less directly related to seasonal variations.
Tall huckleberry plants could potentially be an indicator of highly productive sites (Anzinger 2002). The
average height of huckleberry plants was virtually the same Pinto as it was in Sawtooth. Fruit production
and height had moderate to strong relationships throughout most of the plots in the project area. Similar
results were found by Stark and Baker (1992) and Anzinger (2002).
Soil disturbance
Research suggests that soil disturbance can have an impact on the establishment of huckleberry plants in
the treated units. The rhizomal network of the huckleberry plant can persist beneath the soil waiting for
favorable conditions to arise so the plant can emerge (Martin 1979). However, too much scarification to
the soil and deep layers of tree debris can inhibit this new growth. On the other hand, topographic
heterogeneity could possilby create conditions favorable to huckleberry regrowth. For this project, soil
108
disturbance was measured on a ranked scale using these four categories (none, low, moderate, and
severe). Each category had short explanations to help ensure consistency across surveyors.
Of the units that were treated and that had any instance of soil disturbance, all of them had a moderate to
strong negative relationship between huckleberry percent cover and soil disturbance, indicating that soil
disturbance had a negative impact on huckleberry cover. Overall, the treatment approaches in Sawtooth
resulted in less soil disturbance than those in Pinto. For instance, of the 33 plots we surveyed in Pinto 7,
all but two of them were in a slash pile, skid trail, or landing site (94% of the plots). Just over half of the
plots (56%) in Pinto 9 were in a slash pile, skid trail or landing site. Pinto 8 had the highest huckleberry
percent cover and the fewest occurrences of plots (36%) being in a slash pile, skid trail, or landing site.
Prescriptions and treatments
The relationship between the prescription and the resulting forest condition did not appear to correlate as
much as we had expected. In addition to canopy cover being only loosely related to treatment
prescription, the amount and severity of ground disturbance also varied widely among similar
prescriptions.
Figure 13 shows the relationship between prescription and huckleberry cover. From what we can draw
from the initial results of 2017, it would likely be beneficial to identify ways to ensure that treatment
more closely matches the prescription and to investigate ways to decrease soil disturbance and impacts to
the current huckleberry coverage while still meeting the goals of the treatment prescription.
109
Literature Cited
Anzinger, D. 2002. Big huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum Dougl.) ecology and forest
succession, Mt. Hood National Forest and Warm Springs Indian Reservation, Oregon.
M.Sc. Thesis. U. of Oregon.
Martin, Patricia A. E. 1979. Productivity and taxonomy of the Vaccinium globulare, V.
membranaceum complex in western Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.
136 p. Thesis.
Stark N., Baker S. 1992. The ecology and culture of Montana huckleberries: a guide for growers
and researchers. Misc. Publication 52. Missoula (MT): Montana Forest and Conservation
Experiment Station and School of Forestry, University of Montana. 87 p.
U.S. Forest Service, Prepared by Senderak, K. 2013. Polepatch Huckleberry Restoration Project:
Vegetation Management Report. Not published.
110
Appendix A.
Survey protocol
Plot Establishment (see Figure 1 in report)
We established plot locations using the random point generator in ArcGIS. We designated 30 randomly
selected points at each unit to use for survey. Our goal is to survey at least 10 plots within each treatment
unit (or control area). We designated extra plots because some plots will not be reachable, others may
encompass areas that are not suitable for survey (such as roads or camping areas), and there are time
constraints that will limit the number of plots accessed.
Plots and Subplots
At each survey plot, a 100m2 plot will be established using the randomly generated point as the center of
the plot. Three 2m2 square subplots will be established within the larger plot for finer scale observations
of huckleberry phenology, with one at the center of the 100m2 plot, one 1.4m north from the edge of the
center plot, and one 1.4m south from the other edge of the center subplot (see Figure 1 below).
Figure 1. Survey plot and subplots.
Photopoints
One photopoint will be taken at a subset of the plots within each unit. Each photo will be taken from the
center point and facing north. In 2018, we will be following up on previously established photopoints in
the Pole Patch project area set by the Forest Service.
111
Data Collection – Plot Level The following observations and measurements will be recorded at each 100m2 plot:
Extrapolation of treatment
o Type of treatment/year treated, none, unsure, burned or unburned
Aspect
o N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW, flat
Approximate percent cover of huckleberry
Spatial distribution of huckleberry
1 – Located mainly along forest edges
2 – Scattered or clumped distribution
3 – Fully distributed throughout the plot
Presence and percent distribution of other Vaccinium species
Presence of invasives
o Y/N, make note if prominent species is known
Approximate percent cover of beargrass
Soil disturbance
None – No observed soil disturbance
Low – Topsoil is compacted but not churned
Moderate – Topsoil is moderately churned or compacted
Severe – Topsoil is severely churned or compacted
Biodiversity of surrounding vegetation (general and quick observation, approximate classes)
Class 1: 0–3 different understory shrubs/grass
Class 2: 3–5 different understory shrubs/grasses
Class 3: >5 understory shrubs/grasses
Percent canopy cover (average of five readings: facing north for each reading, collect one at
the plot center and one in each cardinal direction at the plot edge).
Stem density of trees / stems in the plot (delineate live or dead)
Data Collection – Subplot Level
The following observations and measurements will be recorded at each 2m2 plot (see tables 1, 2, and 3):
1. Status of huckleberry production
2. Ripening status
3. Average plant height
Sampling would ideally occur during the beginning and middle of huckleberry ripening (before humans
and other animals have removed the berries). We will note if areas have been harvested by humans or
other animals. Huckleberry fruit production and phenology will be assessed using 2m2 subplots. Fruit
production and phenology will be recorded using the classifications from the tables below. The
classification is used for both ripe and green fruit, but an additional classification system will be used to
identify most fruit within the plot as green, ripe, or fallen/taken. Plant height will be estimated as an
average for the unit.
112
Table 1. Categories for assessing huckleberry fruit production (Anzinger 2002).
Fruit Production
Class Class Description (ripe or green)
0 No huckleberry plants in plot
1 Huckleberry plants in plot, no fruit
2 Low (< 5 fruits/stem on all stems in plot.)
3 Medium (<5 fruits/stem on most stems in plot, between 5-10 fruits on others.)
4 Medium-high (< 10 fruits on most stems in plot, between 10-15 fruits on others.)
5 High (< 15 fruits on most stems in plot, between 15-20 fruits on others.)
6 Extra high (>20 fruits on most stems in plot.)
Table 2. Categories for assessing ripeness of fruit
Fruit
Ripeness
Class
Class Description
0 No ripe fruit
1 Up to half of the fruit is ripe
2 Most or all the fruit is ripe
3 Up to half the fruit fallen/taken
4 More than half the fruit fallen/taken
113
Table 3. Categories for assessing average heights of all huckleberry plants within a single plot
Height Class Description
X-Small Average height less than 0.1 m (4 in.)
Small Between 0.1 m and 0.5 m (4 in. – 1.6 ft.)
Medium Between 0.5 m and 1 m (1.6 – 3.2 ft.)
Large Greater than 1 m (3.2 ft.)