Regional Ecosystem Office
333 SW 1st
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, Oregon 97208-3623
Phone: 503-808-2165 FAX: 503-808-2163

              Memorandum

Date:     July 15, 1998

To:         Robert W. Williams, Regional Forester, Region 6, Forest Service

From:     Donald R. Knowles, Executive Director

Subject:  Regional Ecosystem Office Review of Soleduck LSR Assessment, Olympic National Forest

Summary

The Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) and the interagency Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) Work Group have reviewed the Soleduck Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA). The REO finds that the LSRA provides sufficient framework and context for future projects and activities within the LSR. Future silvicultural and salvage activities described in the LSRA that meet its criteria and objectives, and that are consistent with the Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) in the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP), are exempted from subsequent project-level REO review.

Basis for the Review

Under the S&Gs for the NFP, a management assessment should be prepared for each large LSR (or group of smaller LSRs) before habitat manipulation activities are designed and implemented. As stated in the S&Gs, these assessments are subject to the REO review. The REO review focuses on the following:

1. Under the S&Gs for the NFP, a management assessment should be prepared for each large LSR (or group of smaller LSRs) before habitat manipulation activities are designed and implemented. These assessments are subject to REO review. This review considers whether the assessment contains sufficient information and analysis to provide a framework and context for making future decisions on projects and activities. The eight specific subject areas that an assessment should generally include are found in the NFP (S&Gs, page C-11). The REO may find that the assessment contains sufficient information or may identify topics or areas for which additional information, detail, or clarity is needed. The findings of the review are provided to the agency or agencies submitting the assessment.

2. The review also considers treatment criteria and potential treatment areas for silvicultural, risk-reduction, and salvage activities if addressed in the LSRA. When treatment criteria are clearly described and their relationship to achieving desired late-successional conditions are also clear, subsequent projects and activities within the LSR(s) may be exempted from further REO review, provided they are consistent with the LSRA criteria and S&Gs. The REO authority for developing criteria to exempt these actions is found in the S&Gs (pages C-12, C-13, and C-18). If such activities are not described in the LSRA and exempted from further review in this memo, they remain subject to future REO review.

Both aspects of this review are described below.

Scope of the Assessment and Description of the Assessment Area

The REO reviewed the LSRA in light of the eight subject areas identified in the S&Gs (page C-11). Questions from the work group were answered in supplemental information dated 1/28/98, 2/10/98, and 2/17/98. These supplements add information about three 100-acre LSRs, Special Uses, recreation sites, coarse woody debris (CWD) objectives, and post-project levels of CWD and snags.

The Soleduck LSR Assessment addresses the 85,000 acre LSR # RW101, a 1995 combination of original LSRs RW101 through 106, three 100-acre owl circles, and all LSOG 1 and 2 lands on the Soleduck Ranger District. Fifty-nine percent of the LSR is late-successional or old-growth (LSOG) over 161 years old. Thirty-six percent is under age 80, with most of that resulting from previous clear cuts. Nineteen percent is less than 25 years old, 11 percent is between 25 and 40, and 6 percent is 41 to 80 years old. Five percent has been precommercial thinned, and one percent has been commercial thinned. Nearly half of the LSR is the Western Hemlock plant association, of which Douglas-fir is a significant component. Most of the remainder is Silver Fir plant association. The LSRA is well thought out and organized, and contains particularly good history, insect, fire, and goals and priorities discussions. Maps and tables are excellent. Wind is a primary stand replacing event in the area. Stand replacing fires have occurred on the District within the past 100 years, but these areas were generally avoided during LSR layout. The fire risk strategy within the LSR is limited to putting fires out and treating activity fuels along roads.

There are 26 marbled murrelet sites within the LSR and 22 owl centers. An additional 26 owl activity centers partially extend into a portion of the LSR. The LSR partially overlaps a Bald Eagle Recovery Zone 2 (nests near rivers) and one site is known. No conflicts between eagle and LSR direction have been identified.

The LSR overlays forest land management plan (LMP) designations of 630 acres of Undeveloped Recreation, 1,479 acres of Scenic, 44 acres of Developed Recreation (3 sites), 3,108 acres of River Corridors, 330 acres of Bald Eagle Management Areas, and 666 acres of Botanical Areas. The remaining 78,750 acres was previously Timber Management.

Priorities for silvicultural treatments are to protect existing LSOG, accelerate development of LSOG conditions in younger stands, particularly in owl territories less than 40 percent LSOG (with consideration for the potential short-term negative effects), and creating wildlife trees, CWD, canopy gaps, and other LSOG structure where it does not exist. The forest works closely with a senior PNW researcher and others on techniques to develop habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species, and criteria and prescriptions detailed on pages 57 through 71 are particularly consistent with the LSR Work Group's latest thinking regarding beneficial stand treatments.

Existing activities are described, and include special forest products gathering "evaluated for effects and controlled through permits and timing limitations" ... "to meet NWFP S&Gs for all such products." Fuelwood (and Western Red Cedar) gathering is limited to cull decks, road prisms, and activity fuels along roads. The assessment provides decision makers with a good description of conditions, processes, existing activities, and management needs to provide the basis for management decisions within the LSR. The REO finds that the LSRA with these revisions provides a sufficient framework and context for making future decisions on projects and activities within the LSR.

Suggestions and Notations

We believe inclusion of a road map, such as the 1/2" = 1 mile recreation map, would increase the usability of the document. Further, we request that the "E1-Timber Management" label on Figure 2 be changed, for example by adding "superseded" or similar text, to reduce the likelihood that a reader might assume some of the LMP timber management objectives may still carry forward. Whereas the other LMP allocations all still apply to the extent they are consistent with LSR objectives, virtually every aspect of "timber management" designations have been superseded, and the current display and labeling on Figure 2 has the potential to cause confusion.

In the first full paragraph on page 42, please note that inclusion of "all federal land within .5 miles of a murrelet site" exceeds the S&G requirement (page C-10) to include existing habitat and recruitment habitat (i.e., stands that are capable of becoming marbled murrelet habitat within 25 years).

Also, note that Survey and Manage S&Gs apply to activities within LSRs.

Activities Exempted from Further Review

Beginning on page 57, criteria for treatments are described, followed by specifications for those treatments. Commercial thinning is planned for 25 to 80 year old stands at approximately 200 acres per year following an initial entry of 1,500 acres currently identified. Other treatments include young stand thinning (precommercial), fertilization, understory reinitiation, snag and CWD creation, reforestation, and salvage. Thinning and planting treatments described are generally similar to those described in REOs exemption letters of 7/9/96 and 5/9/95 and, for example, limit removal to trees less than 20 inches dbh. Salvage is limited to disturbances where crown closure is below 40 percent over 10 acres, or in units smaller than 10 acres but adjacent to, and considered part of, existing recent openings as described in the Research and Monitor Committee's letter of January 7, 1997. CWD and snag levels to be left after treatments are described in the LSRA as supplemented. For example, CWD levels after salvage will be two times the levels measured in existing old-growth (Table 3). Silviculture and salvage activities, when conducted as described in the LSRA and supplemental information, and otherwise consistent with the NFP S&Gs, are exempted from further REO review. Silviculture, risk, and salvage proposals other than as described remain subject to REO review.

Conclusion

Based on the documentation found in the LSRA and the amended information, the REO finds that the LSRA provides a sufficient framework and context for future projects and activities within the LSR. As identified above, silvicultural and salvage activities specifically identified in the LSRA which are consistent with the NFP S&Gs and the treatment criteria identified in the assessment are exempted from subsequent project-level REO review.

cc:
Lisa Freedman, FS
Forest Supervisor, Olympic NF
REO, RIEC

1162/ly