LSOGs and ALSEs
In the QLG Area.

Definitions:

LSOG rank. Late Successional Old Growth rank. Areas of land that have relatively uniform forest structure are ranked according to their LSOG characteristics. The ranking is from zero (no LSOG structural characteristics) to five (maximum LSOG structural characteristics).

No concise definition of each LSOG rank is provided. Instead, a table (appendix to Franklin, 1996 a) gives examples of LSOG rank that would be assigned to 65 types of forest “patch” that are divided into four four main "forest groupings:" Mixed Conifer/ Westside (WMC), Red Fir (RF), White Fir/Eastside (WF) and Subalpine (SA).

For the two forest groupings (WMC and WF) that dominate in the QLG Area, example rankings are shown in Table 1, Example LSOG Rankings.

ALSE. Area of Late Successional Emphasis. These are larger areas, commonly ranging from 5,000 to 30,000 acres, based on areas with LSOG rank 4 and 5. Typically 1/2 to 2/3 of the ALSe would be maintained as a core area in which managment would consist primarily of prescribed fire or managed wildfire with little or no mechanical treatment.

Silvicultural manipulations, as well as prescribed fire, could be used on the remainder to create shaded fuelbreaks, and alter or remove fuels (e.g. biomassing or thinning), but always with the primary objective of protecting the LSOG resource of the ALSE. (Franklin, 1996 b)

Cautions:

SNEP makes it very clear that the LSOG and ALSE maps are not to be used for actual land management decisions. Franklin himself says:

"Databases and maps should not be utilizedfor local management purposes without additional ground-based measurements.”  (Franklin, 1996 a. Emphasis in the original)

Langley, who did an independent evaluation of the Franklin maps says:

“The magnitude of the classification errors shown in this report indicate that it would be dangerours to attempt detailed site-specific prediction of forest structure at the plot, patch or even polygon levels directly from the LSOG maps.”
“At the patch level, the mappers were consistent in making rating assignments about 60% of the time overall, at least in the mixed conifer forest type. The reliability of these ratings is higher in the lower rating classes (about 65% for classes 1 and 2) and lowest in the higher rantings (about 44% for class 4).” (Langley, 1996)

In other words, 4 out of 10 rankings were in error by at least one rank, and errors occurred more often om jogj ranking areas then in low ranking areas. Inspection of tabulated data in the Landley chapter indicates that some rankings were 2 or 3 ranks in error.

Table 1.

Example LSOG Rankings.

Samples of major ranking criteria for Mixed Conifer/ Westside (marked WMC) and White Fir Eastside (marked WF). Derived from SNEP Vol II, Ch 21, Appendix 1.

The criteria for LSOG rank 1 (very little old growth character is very loose, and would practically never restrict a management activity.

Other minor variations in the combinations of criteria within each ranking are possible, but the above are good samples of the full range.

Management of ALSEs in the QLG Area, With and Without the QLG Bill.

(Statements below are based on Table 2, LSOG in the QLG Area, and Table 3, ALSE in the QLG Area. attached.)

1. The QLG off-base and deferred areas would give absolute protection to about half of all rank 4 and 5 LSOG and ALSE areas.

2. Without the QLG Bill, 89 percent of rank 4 and 5 LSOG and ALSE areas would be available for timber management under existing rules. Only 11 percent would be protected by existing Wilderness or SOHA / PAC status.

3. With the QLG Bill, Senate Committee language requires the Forest Service to avoid "...scheduling timber harvesting and road construction ... [in] late successional old growth stands..." Thus the QLG Bill would protect 100 percent of high ranking LSOG in the QLG Area.

4. By definition, ALSEs include large areas of lower LSOG rank. For example, Table 2 shows that 60 percent of the ALSE area is LSOG rank- 3 and below. This 60% is to be managed for fire protection and other goals consistent with preservation and creation of LSOG characteristics. The QLG Bill is fullv consistent with that goal, providing DFPZs to improve fire protection, and group selection silviculture to help restore the "fine-scale mosaic" described as a desirable LSOG charactistic in SNEP Vol 1, Ch 6, pg 90.

5. Any project actuallv proposed during implementation of the QLG Bill would still have to go through all existing NFMA and NEPA procedures. Every, interested party, would have exactly the same rights they now have, to be provided information and opportunities for comment, and the night to appeal decisions and pursue other legal recourse if all else fails.

Table 2. LSOG in the QLG Area
LSOG = Late-Successional Old Growth characteristic

Lassen NF, Plumas NF, and Sierraville RD (excludes FS land north of Highway 299E)

Table 3. ALSE in the QLG Area
ALSE = Areas of Late Successional Emphasis

Lassen NF, Plumas NF, and Sierraville RD (excludes FS land north of Highway 299E)

References:

Franklin,1996 a. Assessment of Late-Successional Forests of the Sierra Nevada,
            Jerry F. Franklin and Jo Ann Fites-Katifinan, SNEP Vol II, Ch 21, pp 627-662.

Franklin.1996 b. Alternative Approaches to Conservation of Late-Successional Forests in the Sierra Nevada and
            their Evaluation,
            Working Group on Late-Successional Conservation Strategies, Jerry F. Franklin, et al, SNEP Addendum,
            Ch 3, pp 53-69.

Langley,1996. Quality Assessment of Later Seral Old-Growth Forest Mapping,
             Philip G. Langley, SNEP Vol II, Ch 22, pp 663-669.

Sunday, January ,(, /),( 0(:,(:,( AM