# Interim Protection for

Late-Successional Forests, Fisheries,

and Watersheds
National Forests East of the CascadeCrest,

Oregon and Washington

A.Report to the United States Congress and the President



## Executive Summary September 1993

Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel

American Fisheries Society Sierra Biodiversity Institute Dan Bottom Steve Beckwitt Oregon Chapter Eric Beckwitt P. O. Box722 P.O. Box 29 Corvallis, OR97339 North San Juan, CA95960

Sam Wright Society for Conservation Biology North Pacific International Chapter James R. Karr 2800 Limited Lane #F-4 Institute for Environmental Studies Olympia, WA98502 University of Washington, FM-12 Seattle, WA

98195. American Ornithologists’ Union

Jim Bednarz The Wildlife Society Department of Bio.logy Mark Henjum, Chair Boise State Un’iversity Oregon Chapter Boise, ID 83725 10720th Street La Grande, OR97850 Ecological Society of America

David Perry Department of Forest Science Oregon State University Forest Sciences Laboratory 020 Corvallis, OR97331-7501

## Executive Summary

For the past decade, the national forests of western Washingtonand Oregonhave received regional ahd national attention because of their central role in the economic and ecological health of the Pacific Northwest. Thenational forests east of the Cascadecrest ~ are no less important and, like the western forests addressed by the President’s April Forest Conferenceand resulting Forest Plan, are also receiving national attention. Yet despite the importanceof these Eastside forests, wehaveno synthesis of scientific information abouttheir status and that of the associated biological resources. Tofill this void, a bipartisan group of seven members of the USHouseof Representatives approachedseveral scientific societies to formthe Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel to "initiate a review and report on the Eastside forests of Washingtonand Oregon." Theyhoped to make"every effort to include the Eastside forests in whateverancient forest legislation is considered by the Congress." Thepanel’s mandatewasto broadly review the status of all Eastside forests andtheir associated rescx~rces. In contrast, the mandateof the Forest Health Assessment Team(the Everett Panel) wasnarrower. This team focused largely on forest health andonly in six river basins; their report is described as "general in nature" (USForest Service 1993). The geographical extent of old-growth forest ecosystemsin Eastside national forests has been dramatically reduced during the twentieth century; continued logging of old growth outside current reserves will jeopardize unknown numbersof native species. Forest harvest and other humanactions have also changedthe character of manyother componentsofEastside landscapi including rivers with their populations of resident and migratory salmonids. Many ecologists believe that the combined effects of logging old growth and fire prevention have significantly increased the vulnerability of Eastside landscapes to catastrophic disturbances, further threatening whatare already severely reduced habitats. TheEastside Forests Scientific Society Panel pulled together existing information in a report that defines current conditions and offers interim recommendations for protecting the remaining resources until a long-term plan for protection and restoration can be formulated. This executive summary provides an overview of the report and the panel’s interim recommendations; the complete printed report will be available in October 1993.

The Data Sets : Ouranalysis of late-successional/old-growth forest (LS/OG) 2 is based largely on (1) the National AudubonSociety Adopt-a-Forest Project carried out in cooperation with the US Forest Service (USFS)and (2). in-house USFS old-growth inventories. Both projects involved interpretation of aerial phdtographyand validation byranger district staff and, sometimes,field

1 Ten national forests (Fremont, Winema, Deschutes, Ochoco, Malheur, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman, Wenatchee, Colville, Okanogan)occupy lands between the Cascade Crest and the eastern boundaries of Washington and Oregon. 2 In this report we follow the definition of late-successional/old-growth forest (LS/OG)as stated in Hopkins (1992), Hopkinset al. (1992a,b), and Williams et al. (1992a,b) with two important exceptions: (1) We minimum patch size for LS/OG

of 0.5 acres, as opposedto the 10 to 80 acres in USFS interim guidelines, and (2! old-growthtree is defined byeither size or age, not both (see full report for moredetail).reconnaissance. USFS also furnished many

additional details about the national forests of the Eastside. Recent efforts by state and regional chapters of the AmericanFisheries Society defined aquatic olvers~ty management areas (Or%on)or their equivalents (X,Vashington). All available geographical data were assembled in a geographic information system (GIS) by the Sierra Biodi’~ersity Institute.

Resource Conditions Theforest ecosystemseast of the Cascadecrest differ significantly fromthose west of the crest. Compared with Wcstside forests, forests east of the crest l~rowin a moreextreme climate-- hotter anddrier in sL~rrlmerandcolder in winter--and on soils that arc often less productive. Their structure is moreopen, with a grassy under’tory maintained by frequent, light groundfires; the habitat requi~Tements of fish and wildlife mayalso differ. Late-successional/old-growth forest Current levels of late-successional old growthon the Eastsidc fall far belo,~ historic levels, partic~arly in lower-elevation forests dominatedby ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas fir. Only about 20 to 25%of remainir~g E6/OG is currently protected administratively or by statute (from 8%in W’allowa~-Whitman National Forest to 32%.in Deschutes National Forest). From70 to 95%of the LS/OG patches that remain cover less than 100 acres each--too small to provide for the basic needs of many LS/OG-associated species. Three national forests (Colville, Wallowa-Whitman,and Winema)have no LS/OG patches larger than 5000 acres; of the seven LS/OG patches in three national forests (Malheur, Ochoco,and Umatilla) that ~e larger than 5000acres, only one is protected. Continued logging of currently unprotected LS/OG at 1980s rates wouldreduce the area occupied by these unique ecosystems to between7 and 13% of forested lands in the national forests. Further reduction in LS/OG is likely to jeopardize manycomponentsof the biological diversity OfEastside forests and increase the numbersof threatened or endangeredspecies, especially amongsensitive wildlife such as the Americanmarten, northern goshawk,pileated .woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, and flammulated owl. Many areas set aside in current forest plans as "designated old growth"are not old growth. The overlap of actual and designated old growthvaries significantly among national forests: in Winema National Forest, only 16%of designated old growth patches contain more than twothirds actual old-growth forest, but in W’allowa -xXThitman

National Forest, 70%of designated old-growth patches contain morethan two-thirds actual old growth. Ponderosa pine forests have been especially hard hit by logging. Only3-~%of the original ~onderosa climax old growth remains in Deschutcs, 5-8%in ~,Tincma, and 2-8%in Fremont iaational forests. But the impactof human actions in Eas~sidcf-orest~ goeswell beyond logl~in ~. Roadconstruction, grazing, and fire control also maydegrade forests and associated resources. Aquatic systems Since Europeanssettled the region, the ability of aquatic systemsto sustain populations of native vertebrates has been compromised:large numbersof fish and amphibiantaxa nowface extinction in watersheds throughout the Eastside. Salmonproduction in the ColumbiaRiver has declined to
~" less than five percent of its historic levels. At least 106major populations of migratory salmon

- and steelhead trou~ have been extirpated on the WestCoast, many of these ea~t of the Cascades. t~esident species that completetheir life cycles within freshwater habitats are also threatenedwith extinction. In Oregon,24 of 25 at-risk resident fish species or subspecies occur exclusively

 ̄ in Eastside waters; 14 are found in watersheds within the boundaries or immediately

downstream

of national forests.
Roadless regions Becauseroads crisscross so many forested areas on the Eastside, existing roadless regions have
enormousecological value. Unfortunately, fewof these remaining areas are protected; in the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregonand Washington, for example, less than 8%of 722,000 acres of forested, roadless area is administratively protected. Althoughroads wereintended as innocuous corridors to ease the movement of humansand commodities across the landscape~ they harmthe water, soils, plan~s, andother animalsin those, landscapes. Riparian corridors Riparian (river, stream, and lake-edge) corridors--which link forest and stream environments,
serve as buffer zonesprotecting water resources, andsupport a disproportionate share of regional. biological diversity--have been damagedby logging, road construction, and grazing throughout the Eastside. Thi~destruction also threatens the flow of high-quality water for use by humans.
Soils Soils on steep slopes, ~specially pumice, are vulnerable to erosion whendisturbed, leading to siltation and reducing soil fertility. It takes a minimum of 200years to reestablish old-growth forests on the best, moststable sites after logging; it couldtake much longer on fragile sites. In particularly fragile areas, forest cover could be permanentlylost.
Elements and processes In short, the elements (genetic diversity andrichness of species andhabitats) and processes (hydrological, biological, and ecological) that characterize the ecosystems and landscapes of the Eastside have been heavily altered by recent human acti.vities. Whatmany people do not realize is that such alterations in turn jeopardize the very real services providedto human society by these elements and processes. Only by implementing an ecologically sound managementprogram can future generations continue to harvest the benefits of these forests and.their associated resources. The following recommendationsare designed to protect the remaining resources until a longterm strategy of protection and restoration can be developed.Interim Recommendations of the Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel
1. Donot log late-successional/old-growth forests in eastern Oregon and Washington. The significantly reduced area and fragmentation of Eastside late-successional/old-growth forests .from past logging and road construction threatens many forest and aquatic species. Furthermore,the ability of regional landscapes--critical aquatic and terrestrial habitats, especially--to absorb and buffer natural and human-induceddisturbances is diminished. Deferring LS/OG

logging on all remaining fragments will create a "time out," allowing scientists to rigorously assess the status of LS/OG forests and develop a strategy to protect
them.

2. Cut no trees of any species older than 150 years or with a diameter at breast height (DBH)Of 20 inches or greater. It is essential to conserveas many of the maturetrees of Eastside forests as possible in the short term to sustain these forests in the long term. Maturetrees have lived for decades, even centuries; their very existence demonstratesthat they havethe genetic characteristics to survive the full range ofenvironmental.wariation present in eastern Oregonand Washington. Theyare reservoirs of genetic diversity and serve as irreplaceable seed sources for forest regeneration; they replenish the depleted supply of large snags and fallen logs, providing nest andden sites for manyanimals; and they furnish unique historic records. Asforester BoydE. Wickman (1992) points out, they are "living examplesof our long-term objectives."

3. Donot log or build new roads in aquatic diversity management areas (ADMAs). ADMAs are defined as locations wherenative aquatic species are at risk of extinction and vulnerable to future disturbance, wholewatersheds that represent the best remaining examples of native aquatic ecosystems, or connecting corridors that provide an essential link between habitats required to suppo~’tfish populationsat critical times in their life cycles. Suchareas contain the last vestiges of quality habitat andgenetic resources for native fish andother aquatic biota. Theyserve as cornerstones for any future efforts to protect dozensof at-risk stocks or to rebuild the lost production of native fishes. In addition, they provide the benchmarksfor evaluating effects of land management and defining the ecological processes that restoration should emulate.

4. Donot construct newroads or log within current (1) roadless regions larger than 1000

acres or (2) roadless regions that are biologically significant but smaller than 1000acres. Roadless regions exemplify the least human-disturbed forest and stream systems, the last reservoirs of ecological diversity’, andthe primary benchmarks for restoring ecological health and integrity. Roadsfragment habitat; alter the hydrology of watersheds; supply excessive sediment to streams; inci’ease human access and thus disturbances to forest animals; and influence the dispersal of plants andanimals, especially exotic species, across the landscape.

5..Establish protected corridors along streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands. Restrict timber harvest, road construction, grazing, and cutting of fuelwood within these corridors. Riparian corridors are particularly important in the semiarid environments dominating eastern Oregonand Washington.Seventy-five percent of terrestrial species known to occur inthe Blue Mountains, for example, either dependdirectly on riparian zones or use them mc ~" than other habitats. Riparian areas also function as buffers that canreducethe effects on

waterwaysof human

land use, such as fertilizer and pesticide runoff fromagriculture. Perennial streams with and without fish should be protected by a buffer zone on each side that is at least 300feet widehorizontally, regardless of slope, or as wideas the 100-year floodl31ain, whicheveris greater. Lakes, ephemeraland intermittent streams, seeps, springs, and wetlands should be protected by a buffer at least 150feet wideon all sides. Furthermore, modifying stream configuration by meansof instream structures such as deflectors and cabled logs should not be done as a surrogate for riparian-zone recovery. The greatest limitations to Eastside fish production, for example, are high water temperatures and sedimentloads; structures do nothing to mitigate or reverse the effects of either of these factors. Instream structures should not be installed without thorough watershed-level analysis to determin~ the approachthat best protects and restores ecological elements and processes.

6. Prohibit logging of dominantor codominantponderosa pine fromEastside forests. Restoring ponderosa pine to its former position of dominancein East~ide forests must be doneto protect and restore Easto,s.id, forest ecosystems. Thematureponderosapines that remain constitute important points of origin for any recovery process, whetheror not these trees are in LS/OG

patches. Their protection mustbe a high priority independent of the patch size in whichthe trees are located.

7. Prohibit timber harvest in areas prone to landslides or erosion unless it can be conclusively demonstrated by peer-reviewed scientific study that no associated soil degradation or sediment input to streams results fromthat harvest. Protecting soil fertility and stream water quality mustbe a high priority of all land management.Therefore, no logging should be permitted on slopes with a gradient steeper than 30%on pumice soils and 60%on other soil types. Logging on slopes between 30 and 60% should retain 40%

of maximum

basal area, 3 at least one-half of this basal area in trees larger than the quadratic meandiameter of unlogged trees.

8. Prevent livestock grazing in riparian areas except under strictly defined conditions that protect those riparian areas from degradation. Poorly managed

grazing in riparian zones often contributes to degradation of the terrestrial and aquatic components of regional landscapes. Grazing maytherefore be incompatible with protection of LS/OG

andADMAs,

including assurance of their role as sources of colonists for restoring adjacent areas. Thefirst step is to evaluate the condition of riparian areas in Eastside forests, including the extent to whichgrazing is injuring those areas. Thesecondstep is to initiate long-term monitoring programsto track the condition of grazed and ungrazed areas. If these evaluations or monitoring programs demonstrate a threat to the health or integrity of LS/OG and ADMAs,

grazing should be prohibited. Elsewhere, (a) if an area has not been degraded byprevious grazing, grazing could be permitted, but only whenmanagement plans (e.g., allotment management

plans) are revised to incorporate ecological standards consistent with

3Basal areais the summation

oftheareaina standoccupied bytree boles;quadratic

mean diameter is themean

 ̄ oftrees inastand.the long-term protection of streams, and the grazing does not degrade the riparian zone; (b)
no grazing should be permitted in degraded riparian zones until conditions have been restored; (c) after restoration, livestock grazing shouldbe permitted only to the extent that does not damagerestored areas, and management plans have been revised to meet appropriate ecological standards.

9. Donot log on fragile soils until it is conclusively demonstrated by peer-reviewed scientific study that soil integrity is protected and that forest i’egeneration after logging is assured. Many Eastside,forests growon areas that are transitional to grassland or desert (at low elevation) and to alpine habitat (at high elevation). Maturetrees probably became established in transition areas only during periods of unusually favorable weather. Their persistence helps maintain soil structure and populations of beneficial soil organisms, and maturetrees can survive low-intensity groundfires. Forest regeneration on transition and highelevation sites may

be difficult. Moreover,soils such as ash soils maybe relatively productive but vulnerable to compaction and loss of topsoil. Noxiousweeds(usually introduced e~otic species) contribute to site degradation if the cover of maturetrees is removedfromfragile sites. Withproper silvicultural techniques, however,soils can probably be protected and forest regenerated on many transition sites. Before logging is permitted on
a site, site-specific logging plans Shouldbe required to demonstratethat silvicultural techniques will not diminish the productive capacity of local soils.

10. Establish a panel with the appropriate disciplinary breadth to develop long-term management

guidelines that will protect Eastside forests from drought, fire, insects, and pathogens. Fire prevention and early logging practices have altered someLS/OG systems, makingthem vulnerable to drought, insects, and fire. Salvage (removing dead, fallen woody material) and thinning (cutting small live trees) are twolegitimate techniques--but not the only ones--for lowering risk fromsuch disturbances. But lack of consensus andpast abuses, in whichlarge healthy trees were cut in the guise of salvage, lead us to recommend a comprehensivestudy of this issue. Scientists disagree over howto define the goals of salvage and thinning and over the rules for selecting areas wheresalvage or thinning is required. Noconsensusexists on silvicultural practices for minimizingeffects fromdrought, fire, insects, andpathogens; on the conditions under whichLS/OG should be entered to reduce risk of catastrophic loss; or
on the levels of treatment that reduce risk without compromising ecological values. Sustainingregional natural resources and their use depends on enlightened and comprehensive approachesto protecting forest health.

11. Establish a second panel ,to produce a coordinated strategy for restoring the regional landscape and its component ecosystems. Emphasize protecting the health and integrity of regional biotic elements as well as the processes on which they depend. Existing forest plans are inadequate to address the complexecological issues in Eastside

. forests, especially with regard to management of late-successional/old-growth systems. Forest plans mustbe revised to integrate newecological understanding of the influences of Euroamericansettlement with the changing societal attitudes nowdefining desirable conditions of regional landscapes and their resources. Before those plans canbe revised,comprehensive inventories of the status of natural resources mustbe completedfor each forest. Na.tional policies needto be broughtinto line with national priorities for public lands. Tomeet current needs for protection and restoration, USFS personnel need to be supported with appropriate funding and incentives. Because federal lands are embedded in landscapes that often contain significant amountsof private, state, and tribal lands, regional programs must be grounded in cooperation amongdiverse ownership groups. Long-term management programsdesigned to protect the ecological integrity of regional landscapes mustbe given the highest priority on private as well as public lands. That integrity dependsonprotecting. both the elements (genetic diversity, richness of species and habitats) and the processes (demography,h~drology, nutrient cycling, fire) within regional landscapes. We especially note that this goal cannot be accomplished by applying techniques intended to mimican assumedhistorical distribution of major habitat types or forest age classes. Mimicking "old-growth’structure," as advocated by somesilviculturalists, is not enoughto protect the elements and processes of living late-successional/old-growth forests and their associated resoDrces. Thepanels called for in recommendations10 and 11 should include representatives from all relevant disciplines and members from federal and state agencies, academia, scientific societies, and other groups with appropriate expertise. 

### Summary
Ourrecommendationsconcentrate on the protection of remaining late-successional/old-growth forests, aquatic diversity management areas, roadless regions, and riparian corridors because they
are the basic building blocks for reconstructing or restoring the Eastside landscape. Without them, opportunities will be limited for building a long-term strategy to ensure sustainable supplies of Eastside natural resources. Acknowledgments Funding for development and publication of this report wasprovided by the W.Alton Jones Foundation, PewMemorialTrust, and Bullitt Foundation. The USForest Service, especially Regional Forester John Loweand his staff, provided digital data sets and answers to many of our queries; this report wouldnot have been possible without USFS cooperation. The following organizations also provided valuable assistance: National Audubon Society, TheWilderness Society, Oregon State Service Center, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Departments of Wildlife and Fisheries, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Oregon Chapter of TheWildlife Society, and Oregonand North Pacific International Chapters of the AmericanFisheries Society. Many others aided us in preparing this document; they are acknowledgedin the full report.

Reference~ Hopkins, B. 1992. Lodgepolepine old-growth definition for national forest lands in Eastern Oregon. USDA

Forest Service, Region 6, Interim Old-Growth Definition for Lodgepole Pine Series, June 1992. Hopkins, B., S. Simon, M. Schafer, T. Lillybridge. 1992a. Ponderosa pine old-growth definition for national forest lands in Eastern Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Region6, Interim Old-GrowthDefinition for Ponderosa Pine Series, June, 1992.Hopkins, B., S. Simon, M. Schafer, T. Lillybridge. 1992b. White/grand fir old-growth definition on national forest lands in Eastern Oregonand Washington. USDA Forest Service, Region 6, Interim Old-GrowthDefinition for GrandFir/White Fir Series, June, 1992. US Forest Service. 1993. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment. Volume1, Executive summary. USDA,

National Forest System, Forest Service Research, Portland, Oregon. Wickman,’B.

E. 1992. Forest health in the Blue Mountains:Theinfluence of insects and disease. USFar. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-295. Williams, C., B. Smith, R. Mrowka, J. Berube, B. Kovalchik. 1992a. Douglas-fir (interior) oldgrowth definition on national forest lands in Eastern Washingtonand Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Region6,. Interim Old-Growth Definition for Interior Douglas-Fir Series, .June, 1992. Williams, C., B. Smith, R. Mrowka,J. Berube, B. Kovalchik. 1992b. Subalpine fir old-growth definition on national forest lands in Eastern Oregonand Washington. USDA Forest Service, Region 6, Interim Old-GrowthDefinition for Subalpine Fir Series, June, 1992.

## Eastside Forests of Washington and Oregon

Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel

## Eastside ForestsScientific SocietyPanel Eastside Oregon National Forests AFSAquatic Diversity Maintenance Areas

# NorthernOchoco National Forest
RoadlessRegionAnalysis - 1993

RoadlessRegions: 128,140acres

~ Biologically Significant-greater than 10~0acres: 89~8acres ~ Wilderness Boundary 1 Potentially Biologically Significant-less than 10~0acres: 38,882acres ~,’~’~°* RARE II Roadless

Areas:47,500acres /N/ Current R~ds
~ National Forest Lands /V Forest Boundary
V-~Private Inholdings Sierra Biodiversity In~tute



## EastsideForestsSci~’htific SocietyPanel

### Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel 

## Malheur National Forest

~ ~ ".-~-, ’,.._../ \ 

# / k \.

"’k_....I ,.