This file was created by scanning the printed publication. 

Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; 

however, some errors may remain. 
United Stares

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

United States

Department

of the Interior

Bureau of Land

Management

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

This is not a NEPA decision document
Integrated Scientific Assessment for

Ecosystem Management

in the Interior Columbia Basin

And Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins

Thomas M. Quigley, Richard W. Haynes,

and Russell T. Graham

Technical Editors

Thomas M. Quigley is a range scientist at the Pacific Northwest Research Station, Walla Walla, WA 99362;

Richard W. Haynes is a research forester at the Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR 97208;

Russell T. Graham is a research forester at the Intermountain Research Station, Moscow, ID 83843.

September 1996

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon
Abstract

Quigley, Thomas M.; Haynes, Richard W; Graham, Russell T., tech. eds. 1996. Integrated

scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and

portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 303 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment.)

The Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management for the Interior

Columbia Basin links landscape, aquatic, terrestrial, social, and economic characterizations to describe biophysical and social systems. Integration was achieved through

a framework built around six goals for ecosystem management and three different

views of the future. These goals are: maintain evolutionary and ecological processes;

manage for multiple ecological domains and evolutionary timeframes; maintain

viable populations of native and desired non-native species; encourage social and

economic resiliency; manage for places with definable values; and, manage to maintain a variety of ecosystem goods, services, and conditions that society wants. Ratings

of relative ecological integrity and socioeconomic resiliency were used to make broad

statements about ecosystem conditions in the Basin. Currently in the Basin high

integrity and resiliency are found on 16 and 20 percent of the area, respectively. Low

integrity and resiliency are found on 60 and 68 percent of the area. Different approaches to management can alter the risks to the assets of people living in the Basin

and to the ecosystem itself. Continuation of current management leads to increasing

risks while management approaches focusing on reserves or restoration result in

trends that mostly stabilize or reduce risks. Even where ecological integrity is projected to improve with the application of active management, population increases

and the pressures of expanding demands on resources may cause increasing trends in

risk.

Keywords: Ecosystem assessment, management and goals; ecological integrity; socioeconomic resiliency; risk management

ii
Preface

This document summarizes much of the work of the Science Integration Team (SIT) of

the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). The background

investigations that underlie this report are described in three other documents. The first is

a Framework for Ecosystem Management (Haynes and others 1996); the second is the compilation of detailed reports from each science team staff, referred to as the Assessment of

Ecosystem Components (Quigley and Arbelbide 1996); and, the third document is the

Evaluation of the Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives by the Science Integration

Team (Quigley and others 1996b). These reports supply the detailed information used by

the Science Integration Team to assemble the integrated assessment.

The specific content of this Integrated Assessment was written primarily by Thomas M.

Quigley, Richard W. Haynes, Russell T Graham, James R. Sedell, Danny C. Lee, Bruce G.

Marcot, Paul F. Hessburg, Steven F. McCool, Bruce E. Reiman, Wendel J. Hann, James A.

Burchfield, Michael G. Karl, Amy L. Home, Thomas P. Frost, John F. Lehmkuhl, Iris

Goodman, and Christopher E. DeForest.

All members of the Science Integration Team participated in the discussions and contributed to the writing of two early versions of this report. Christopher E. DeForest helped

write the final Current Status section. Three subsequent drafts were written by the technical editors based on review comments of the earlier drafts and intensive work by several

groups of SIT members who developed concepts related to and estimates of integrity,

resiliency, and risk ratings. James R. Sedell, Danny C. Lee, Paul F. Hessburg, Bruce E.

Reiman, Mark E. Jensen, Kenneth C. Brewer, Bradley G. Smith, J.L. Jones, and Wendel J.

Hann developed the ecological integrity elements and the forest and range clusters. The

material related to composite ecological integrity was developed by James R. Sedell, Danny

C. Lee, Richard S. Holthausen, Bruce G. Marcot, Wendel J. Hann, J.L. Jones, and Thomas M. Quigley. Richard W. Haynes, Amy L. Home, and James A. Burchfield developed

measures of socioeconomic resiliency. Richard W. Haynes, Wendel J. Hann, and Thomas

M. Quigley developed the risk ratings for ecological integrity and risk to human assets

from conditions in wildlands.

Content concerning American Indian Tribes originated from SIT Social Science Staff and

the Tribal Liaison Group of the Project (specifically, Richard Hanes, Mary Keith, and

Ralph Perkins). Content concerning management options originated from the Project's EIS

Teams under the leadership of Jeff Blackwood, Steve Mealey, and Pat Geehan. Literally

hundreds of individuals contributed to this product. We are certain to have failed in recognizing everyone's contribution. We apologize for any oversights.

iii
The SIT Members Making Specific

Contributions to This Document Include:

Aquatics:

Economics:

Landscape Ecology:

Social Science:

Terrestrial Ecology:

Spatial Analysis:

James R. Sedell, Danny C. Lee, Bruce E. Reiman,

Kristine M. Lee, Lynn Decker, Russell F. Thurow,

Jack E. Williams

Richard W Haynes, Amy L. Home,

Nicholas E. Reyna

Wendel J. Hann, Paul F. Hessburg, Mark E. Jensen,

Iris Goodman, Thomas P. Frost, Carl L. Almquist,

J.L. Jones, Kenneth C. Brewer, Bradley G. Smith

Steven F. McCool, James A. Burchfield,

Jon S. Bumstead, Steven J. Galliano,

Stewart D. Allen, Richard C. Hanes

Bruce G. Marcot, John F. Lehmkuhl,

Michael G. Karl, Richard S. Holthausen,

Martin G. Raphael

Rebecca A. Gravenmier

iv
SCIENCE INTEGRATION

TEAM MEMBERS

Team Leaders

Arbelbide, Sylvia J., Geologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Minerals Area Management Director, San

Francisco, CA.

Graham, Russell T., Research Forester

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Moscow, ID.

*Quigley, Thomas M., Range Scientist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA.

Aquatics

Decker, Lynn, Regional Fisheries Program Leader

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Regional Office, San Francisco, CA.

*Lee, Danny C, Research Biologist

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Boise, ID.

Lee, Kristine M., Fisheries/Aquatic Ecology Program Leader

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Regional Office, Ogden, UT.

Rieman, Bruce E., Research Fisheries Biologist

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Forest Science Laboratory, Boise, ID.

*Sedell, James R., Principal Research Ecologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

Thurow, Russell E, Fisheries Research Scientist

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Boise, ID.

*Williams, Jack E., Science Advisor

USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Columbia Northwest Technical Assistance Network, Boise, ID.

V
Economics

*Haynes, Richard W., Research Forester

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Portland, OR.

*Horne, Amy L., Research Forester

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Portland, OR.

Reyna, Nicholas E., Forest Economist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA.

Landscape Ecology

Almquist, Carl L., Geologist

USDI Bureau of Mines, Western Field Operations Center, Spokane, WA.

Borman, Michael, Range Ecologist

USDI National Biological Service, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, OR.

Brewer, Kenneth C., Landscape Ecologist

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Flathead National Forest, Hungry Horse Ranger District,

Hungry Horse, MT.

Frost, Thomas P., Research Geologist

USDI Geological Survey, Western Mineral Resources Branch, Spokane, WA.

Goodman, Iris, Research/Landscape Hydrologist

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Landscape Characterization Research and

Development, Las Vegas, NV.

*Hann, Wendel J., Landscape Ecologist

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Regional Office, Missoula, MT.

*Hessburg, Paul F., Research Plant Pathologist/Entomologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory,

Wenatchee, WA.

*Jensen, Mark, E., Landscape Ecologist

USDA Forest Service, Regional Office, Missoula, MT.

Jones, J.L., Wildlife Biologist

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Beaverhead National Forest, Wisdom Ranger District,

Wisdom, MT.

Karl, Michael G., Rangeland Management Specialist-Ecologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA.

Keane, Robert E., Research Ecologist

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Lab, Missoula, MT.

vi
Leonard, Stephen G., Range Specialist

USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Resource Division, Reno, NV.

Smith, Bradley G., Quantitative Community Ecologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Deschutes National Forest, Silviculture Laboratory,

Bend, OR.

Social

Bumstead, Jon S., Social Scientist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project, Walla Walla, WA.

*Burchfield, James A., Sociologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project, Walla Walla, WA.

Galliano, Steven J., Landscape Architect

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project, Walla Walla, WA.

Hanes, Richard C, Anthropologist

USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Eugene, OR.

*McCool, Steven F., Social Scientist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project, Walla Walla, WA.

Spatial

Gravenmier, Rebecca A., Natural Resource Specialist/GIS

USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR.

Steffenson, John R., GIS Specialist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Regional Office, Portland, OR.

Wilson, Andrew E., GIS Specialist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Regional Office, Portland, OR.

Terrestrial

Croft, Lisa K., Plant Ecologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Ochoco National Forest, Prineville Ranger District,

Prineville, OR.

Hickenbottom, Randal J., Wildlife Biologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Regional Office, Portland, OR.

*Holthausen, Richard S., Wildlife Ecologist

USDA Forest Service, Washington Office, Fish, Wildlife and Rare Plants Staff, Terrestrial Habitat

Ecology Leader, Corvallis, OR.

vii
*Lehmkuhl, John E., Wildlife Ecologist

US DA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory,

Wenatchee, WA.

*Marcot, Bruce G., Wildlife Ecologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Ecological Framework for Management

Program, Portland, OR.

Naney, Robert H., Wildlife Biologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Okanogan National Forest, Supervisor's Office,

Okanogan, WA.

Nelson, Kurt, Supervisory Forester/Branch Chief

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Payette National Forest, Resource Ecology Branch,

McCall, ID.

Niwa, Christine G., Research Entomologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

Raphael, Martin G., Research Wildlife Biologist

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Olympia, WA.

Saab, Victoria A., Research Wildlife Biologist

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Lab, Boise, ID.

* = Lead science responsibilities

viii
TABLE OF

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Ecosystem Management Mandate

Assessments

The Basin

Science Team

Basin Assessment Objectives

Assessment Process

CHAPTER 2. ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

Ecosystem Management Goals

Goal 1. Maintain evolutionary and ecological processes

Goal 2. Manage with an understanding of multiple ecological

domains and evolutionary timeframes

Goal 3. Maintain viable populations of native and desired

non-native species

Goal 4. Encourage social and economic resiliency

Goal 5- Manage for places with definable values

Goal 6. Manage to maintain the mix of ecosystem goods, functions,

and conditions that society wants

Ecosystem Management Concepts

Treatment of risk and uncertainty

Risk management

Scales

Land classifications

Biophysical template

11

17

17

19

19

22

22

24

27

29

30

32

33

35

36

37

39

39

39

41

44

45
CHAPTER 3. CURRENT STATUS OF THE BASIN

Overview

Context

Land area

Population

Recreation

Forestry

Range

Threatened and endangered species

Water supply

Energy

Environmental initiatives

Current Status of the Basin

Landscape ecology

Aquatic/riparian

Terrestrial

Economics

Social

CHAPTER 4. ECOSYSTEM INTEGRITY:

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY AND SOCIOECONOMIC RESILIENCY

Ecological Integrity Ratings

Forestland and Rangeland Integrity

Forestland integrity

Rangeland integrity

Hydrologic Integrity

Aquatic Integrity

Terrestrial Community Types

Forest and Rangeland Cluster Descriptions

Forest Cluster 1

Forest Cluster 2

Forest Cluster 3

Forest Cluster 4

Forest Cluster 5

Forest Cluster 6

47

47

52

52

53

53

54

56

57

59

59

60

60

60

68

74

76

86

95

96

97

97

97

100

103

105

105

108

108

115

115

116

116

2
Rangeland Cluster 1

Rangeland Cluster 2

Rangeland Cluster 3

Rangeland Cluster 4

Rangeland Cluster 5

Rangeland Cluster 6

Composite Ecological Integrity

Social and. Economic Resiliency

Economic Resiliency

Social Resiliency

Risks to Social and Economic Resiliency

Social and Economic Clusters

Developing a Measure of Socioeconomic Resiliency

Risks Associated with the People-Wildland Interaction

Discussion of Ecosystem Integrity

CHAPTER 5. THE FUTURE OF THE BASIN:

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY AND SOCIOECONOMIC

RESILIENCY CONDITIONS AND TRENDS

Future Management Options

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Differences among options

Resource-Specific Outcomes

Landscape ecology

Terrestrial ecology

Social

Aquatic ecology

Economics

Methods for Assessing Future Integrity

Trends in ecological integrity

Population density

Risks to ecological integrity and people and their assets

Discussion of Management Options and Ecosystem Integrity

117

119

119

120

121

123

123

124

124

125

127

127

128

130

134

137

138

138

138

140

140

142

142

144

145

146

148

149

149

153

155

157

3
CHAPTER 6. POLICY QUESTIONS, EFFECTS OF

SPECIFIC POLICY ACTIONS, AND PROCESS QUESTIONS

Policy Questions

Effects of Specific Policy Actions

Process Questions

CHAPTER 7. EMERGING

MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND SCIENCE GAPS

Management Issues

Science Gaps

Biophysical Science and Information Caps

Socioeconomic Science and Information Gaps

Gaps in Scientific Methods

Emerging Science Issues

CHAPTER 8. FINDINGS

Overall Findings

Landscape Ecology Findings

Terrestrial Ecology Findings

Aquatic Ecology Findings

Social Findings

Economic Findings

Geographic Information Findings

Findings for Selected Issues

Findings From the Future Management Options

CHAPTER 9. LESSONS LEARNED

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

LIST OF ACRONYMS

METRIC CONVERSIONS

163

163

172

173

177

177

179

179

179

180

180

181

181

181

182

183

183

183

183

183

185

187

188

189

199

215

231

287

297

303

303

4
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1—Attributes and characteristics typically associated with broad

resolution, regional assessments. 4l

Table 2—Attributes and characteristics typically associated with

mid-resolution, sub-regional assessments. 42

Table 3—Attributes and characteristics typically associated with fine

resolution, landscape assessments. 42

Table 4—Ownership of lands within the Basin assessment area. 48

Table 5—Land ownership, by Ecological Reporting Unit for the

Basin assessment area. 51

Table 6—Summary of potential vegetation groups within the Basin. 52

Table 7—Population, population growth rate, forest area, and forest area

per capita, 1990. 55

Table 8—Areas of timberland in the United States by type of ownership

and sections, 1992. 57

Table 9—Counts or estimates of total species biota of the Basin assessment

area, estimated total U.S. species, and global diversity of organisms. 58

Table 10—National and Basin federally-listed threatened and

endangered plant and animal species. 59

Table 11—Fire regime severity/frequency classes within the Basin Assessment area. 62

Table 12—Historical and occupied range and habitat status for key salmonids

within the Basin Assessment area. 73

Table 13—Percent of predicted unroaded (<0.1 km/km2) area in subwatersheds

(-8,000 ha in size) with key salmonid species strongholds. 74

Table 14— Current economic indicators for the United States, Idaho, Montana,

Oregon, and Washington; totals, metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties,

current and percent change since previous year or decade. 77

Table 15—Employment in economic sectors of United States, the Basin, and

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) regions for 1995; asterisks indicate values

above the national average. 81

Table 16—Net economic value (willingness to pay) of current recreation

activities on FS-BLM lands, by ecological reporting unit (ERU). 87

Table 17—Changes of broadscale terrestrial communities between

historical and current periods within the Basin assessment area. 106

Table 18—Examples of species associated with specific community types. 107

Table 19—Percent of subbasins within each Forest Cluster having a net departure

in terrestrial community type from 75 percent range of the historic 400 year

simulation run. 107

Table 20—Percent of subbasins with range clusters having a net

departure, reduction (-) and increase (+), in 400 year simulation run. 108

Table 21—Summary of Characteristics of Forest Clusters. 109

5
Table 22— Summary of characteristics of Range Clusters. 110

Table 23—Forest and Rangeland Clusters - primary characteristics, risks

to ecological integrity, and opportunities to address risks to integrity. 113

Table 24—Selected landscape ecology related outcomes

shown by future management options. 143

Table 25—Terrestrial communities for the current situation

and management options (year 100) for FS/BLM administered lands. 144

Table 26—Societal acceptability for several variables considered important

by the public compared for each management option. 145

Table 27—Scenic integrity classes for the current situation and

management options (year 10) for FS- and BLM-administered lands. 146

Table 28—Predicted road density classes for the current situation and

management options (year 100) for FS- and BLM-administered lands. 147

Table 29—Number of key salmonids or endemic rare or sensitive fish

species for which the management options would conserve strong populations,

prevent further declines or rebuild depressed populations. 147

Table 30— Selected elements relating the aquatic conservation

strategies of each option to their effectiveness in maintaining and

protecting aquatic ecosystem function. 148

Table 31— Selected economic measures for each of the management options. 148

6
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1—Topography of the assessment area. 18

Figure 2—Each step of the General Planning Model for ecosystem management

has several parts. Because the model is iterative, external or internal influences can

initiate any step in the process and the process never ends. 20

Figure 3a & 3b—Ecosystem organization can be viewed as a hierarchy. Each

level of the hierarchy has both time frames and spatial extents. A vegetation

hierarchy is shown in 3a and a social hierarchy is shown in 3b. 21

Figure 4—Ecological Reporting Units were used to differentiate the

characterizations within the Basin. 23

Figure 5—An example of hydrologic hierarchy from subwatersheds to subbasins. 25

Figure 6a—Example of partitioning risk to ecological integrity across multiple

geographic extents. 40

Figure 6b—An example of cumulative risks to ecological integrity at multiple

geographic extents. Ovoids A, B, and C represent analysis and decision levels

that address risks associated with those levels. 40

Figure 7—Typologies of land classifications. 44

Figure 8—Major land ownerships within the Basin. 49

Figure 9—Percentage of Ecological Reporting Unit area by land ownership. 50

Figure 10—Historic and projected softwood timber harvest in the United

States and in the Basin, 1952-2040. 55

Figure 11—Comparison of historic and current selected landscape elements. 61

Figure 12—Changes in Basin fire regimes from historic to current by severity class. 63

Figure 13—Changes in Basin fire regimes from historic to current by

frequency class. 64

Figure 14—Fire Severity for FS- and BLM-administered Forested Potential

Vegetation Groups. 65

Figure 15—Predicted road density classes. 66

Figure 16—An example of road density categories for subwatersheds

within the Basin. 67

Figure 17—Current number of key salmonid species present within the Basin. 69

Figure 18—Historic number of key salmonid species present within the Basin 70

Figure 19—Number of key salmonid species within strongholds. 71

Figure 20—The location of aquatic strongholds in relation to areas of very

low road densities. 72

Figure 21—Proportion of subwatersheds supporting strong populations of

key salmonids by road density class and land ownership. 73

Figure 22—Location of centers of endemism and rarity and of centers of

biodiversity (for plants and animals). 78

Figure 23—Location of hotspots for rarity/endemism and biodiversity. 79

7
Figure 24—Recreation opportunities and metropolitan areas account for

higher rates of population growth by county. 80

Figure 25—Economic subregions as defined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 83

Figure 26_The location of isolated timber-dependent communities within each

BEA area. 85

Figure 27—Per acre market basket value of selected goods

and services from FS- and BLM-administered lands. 86

Figure 28—Mine and deposit status are shown for the Basin.

Adapted from Bookstrom and others (1996), figures 2-6. 88

Figure 29—Reliance on timber harvested from FS- and BLM-administered lands. 89

Figure 30—Reliance on forage from FS- and BLM-administered lands. 90

Figure 31—Landscape themes assigned to regions within the Basin. 92

Figure 32—Current scenic integrity predicted across the Basin. 93

Figure 33—Forest integrity was rated for those 112 subbasins

that had 20 percent of their area in forest PVGs. 98

Figure 34—Range integrity was rated for those 86 subbasins

that had 20 percent of their area in range PVGs. 99

Figure 35—Hydrologic integrity was rated for the 112

subbasins that had forest PVGs. 101

Figure 36—Hydrologic integrity was rated for

the 86 subbasins that had range PVGs. 102

Figure 37—Aquatic integrity was rated for the 164 subbasins. 104

Figure 38—Subbasins grouped into six Forest Clusters. 111

Figure 39—Subbasins grouped into six Range Clusters. 112

Figure 40—Composite ecological integrity ratings synthesized the

forest, rangeland, forest and rangeland hydrologic, and aquatic

component integrity ratings. 122

Figure 4 la—Percent of the Basin by composite ecological integrity. 124

Figure 41b—Percent of FS- and BLM-administered land by composite

ecological integrity rating. 124

Figure 42—The economic diversity of each county was used to develop

economic resiliency ratings. 126

Figure 43—Socioeconomic resiliency ratings are the sum of ratings for

economic resiliency, population density, and lifestyle diversity. 129

Figure 44—Societal risk of human-ecological interaction: percent of the

Basin with low, moderate, high, or very high risk associated with the

management of human ecological interactions. 131

Figure 45—Level of risk associated with the management of human

ecological interactions on FS-and BLM-administered lands. 133

8
Figure 46—FS/BLM risk of human-ecological interaction: percent of

FS- and BLM-administered land with very high, high, moderate, and low risk

associated with the management of human ecological interactions. 134

Figure 47—Percentage of the Basin by ecological integrity and

socioeconomic resiliency ratings. 135

Figure 48—Proposed reserves on FS- and BLM-administered

lands in Management Option 3. 141

Figure 49—Long-term trends in ecological integrity for FS- and BLMadministered lands: Management Option 1. 150

Figure 50—Long-term trends in ecological integrity for

FS- and BLM-administered lands: Management Option 2. 151

Figure 51—Long-term trends in ecological integrity for FSand BLM-administered lands: Management Option 3. 152

Figure 52—Trends in composite ecological integrity

projected by Management Option. 153

Figure 53—Distribution of population density categories by area

and population of 1994 and 2040. 154

Figure 54—Trends in economic resiliency by area for

Management Options 2 and 3. 155

Figure 55—Long-term trends in risk of human ecological interaction

BLM-administered lands only: Management Option 1. 158

Figure 56—Long-term trends in risk of human ecological interaction

BLM-administered lands only: Management Option 2. 159

Figure 57—Long-term trends in risk of human ecological interaction

BLM-administered lands only: Management Option 3. 160

9
LIST OF PHOTOS

Photos la and lb—This Blue Mountain photo pair shows the change in stream,

meadow, and riparian conditions between 1919 and 1992. Notice the forests in

the background are more densely stocked. 28

Photo 2—The area called the Seven Devils has both cultural

and recreational significance. 36

Photo 3—Forest Service employee examining a log deck with a purchaser.

FS- and BLM-administered lands accounted for 46 percent of harvest in the

Basin in 1991. 37

Photo 4— American Indian picking huckleberries in an area of traditional

cultural significance. 38

Photo 5. Roads provide access for a wide array of uses including cold water fishing. 54

Photo 6—Production of aggregates is a common mining activity on FSBLM-administered lands. 84

Photo 7—This young mixed forest stand of western redcedar,

western hemlock, and western white pine in northern Idaho

illustrates characteristics of a moist forest cluster. 115

Photo 8a and 8b. The expansion of western juniper into sagebrush-grass is

evident in this photo pair showing 1920 to 1956 change resulting form

grazing and fire exclusion. The photo pair typifies changes commonly found

in the juniper woodland rangeland cluster.. 118

Photo 9—This photo illustrates characteristics of a moderate integrity,

dry forest rangeland cluster. Livestock use on FS- and BLM-administered

lands is common within the Basin. 121

Photo 10—The separation of towns and cities from the forest land and rangeland

is becoming less as this central Oregon community scene demonstrates. 130

Photo 11—The expansion of human habitation into the wildland setting

introduces risks from fire and other disturbances. This complicates the

FS- and BLM-management of these risks. 132

Photos 12a and 12b—One management tool considered in the dry forested

vegetation types that addresses the role of fire in these ecosystems. 139

Photo 13—Small rural communities have traditionally been closely linked to

the flow of commodities from FS- and BLM-administered lands. 156

Photos 14a and 14b—Due to wide-spread infestation of white pine blister rust

{Cronartium ribicold), white pine and whitebark pine have decreased in moist

and cold forest vegetation types in the Basin. These photos show before and

after effects of blister rust on forest stands dominated by western white pine. 181

20
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In July 1993, as part of his plan for ecosystem

management in the Pacific Northwest, President

Clinton directed the Forest Service to "develop a

scientifically sound and ecosystem-based strategy

for management of Eastside forests." To accomplish this, the Chief of the Forest Service and the

Director of the Bureau of Land Management

jointly established the Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). The

overall assignment of the ICBEMP Science Integration Team (SIT) is to develop a scientific

framework, to conduct detailed functional assessments, and to generate an integrated assessment.

This document is the Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management for the Interior

Columbia Basin and addresses one of the three

primary assignments. This integrative assessment

links landscape, aquatic, terrestrial, social, and

economic characterizations to describe biophysical

and social systems. Integration was achieved

through the use of a framework built around six

goals for ecosystem management and three different views of the future.

This assessment addresses the interior Columbia

Basin east of the Cascade crest and those portions

of the Klamath and Great Basins within Oregon

with emphasis on land administered by the Forest

Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management

(BLM). The total area includes more than 145

million acres (58 million ha) of which 76 million

acres (30 million ha) are administered by the FS

and BLM. Within the assessment area, the Klamath Basin comprises more than 4 million acres

(1 million ha) and the Great Basin comprises

more than 10 million acres (4 million ha).

In the last century, major changes have occurred in

vegetation patterns, fish and wildlife distributions,

processes of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and

human communities in the assessment area (the

Basin). Some changes have permanently converted lands and ecosystems to something other

than what was there before European influence.

Fire regimes have changed in both frequency and

severity; large, high intensity fires have begun to

shape the landscapes. Extensive road networks

have been constructed, increasing sediment production and transport, fragmenting wildlife habitat, but also increasing access for recreation users,

management activities, and commodity production. Exotic plants have been introduced to the

Basin and have spread widely, especially in the

range ecosystems. Introduced fish and wildlife

species, some highly valued, have left a legacy

of wide-ranging non-native species that compete

with, prey upon, or have replaced native species.

Changes in human uses of the Basin, as well as

changes in values, have affected ecosystems and

their management. Social change has been

dramatic as scattered populations of American

Indian tribes have given way to the European

immigrants working farms, mines, mills, and

ranches; to a diverse mix of ethnic backgrounds;

and to the urban and rural dwellers of today.

Human social and political institutions operate

with greater variability and on shorter

timeframes than most ecological processes.

Local, regional, and national interests disagree

about the costs and benefits of commodity

extraction from the public lands, relative to

other economic activity and ecosystem outputs.

11
Today, Federal land management in the Northwest is

under scrutiny from more varied interests, each using

Congressional, judicial, and administrative powers to

gain advantage. Issues include protection of unique

ecosystems and species, management of riparian

areas and old forests, and experimentation with

methods of forest and rangeland management.

Proposed management strategies strive to retain

processes and features important to ecosystem function and to mimic natural disturbance regimes.

Tribal governments are concerned about culturally

and economically significant resources. Other stakeholders are concerned about the availability of commodities from Federal lands and the protection of

private property rights. Those with environmental

interests express concern about the conditions in the

forest, rangeland, and aquatic systems and particularly wildlife species in these systems. Issues arise

from conflicting values, and often involve more than

one spatial extent or timeframe. Therefore, issues

play a major role in defining analysis boundaries,

types of assessments, and data collection. The

ICBEMP was initiated to address many of these

issues as they relate to public land management.

In its broadest terms, management of ecosystem

integrity is composed of two parts: maintaining

ecological integrity, and maintaining the resiliency

of social and economic systems. Ecological integrity

is defined as the degree to which all ecological components and their interactions are represented and

functioning. Resiliency is defined as the degree to

which systems adapt to change.

Ecological integrity and socioeconomic resiliency are

rooted in scientific concepts that reflect human

values, including the normative purpose of maintaining the integrity of a combined natural and cultural

ecosystem. These end-states may include some that

are judged by management and the public as being

"normal and good" but that may not be pristine or

naturally whole. In this sense, the integrity of ecosystems is more an expression of environmental policy

than scientific theory. We acknowledge that many

resource managers may be reluctant to include

societal issues and values in the definition (and

evaluation) of ecosystem integrity. However, since

maintaining the integrity of ecosystems is a management goal, it, by definition, needs to reflect the

values of both managers and users.

We assume that goals that fulfill the purpose of

ecosystem management are: maintain evolutionary

and ecological processes; manage with an understanding of multiple ecological domains and evolutionary timeframes; maintain viable populations of

native and desired non-native species; encourage

social and economic resiliency, manage for places

with definable values; and, manage to maintain a

variety of ecosystem goods, functions, and conditions that society wants.

Ecological Integrity

and Socioeconomic Resiliency

Ratings of ecological integrity and socioeconomic

resiliency are used together to make general statements about ecosystem conditions in the Basin.

Currently high ecological integrity and high socioeconomic resiliency are found on 16 and 20 percent

of the area in the Basin. Low integrity and resiliency

are found on 60 and 68 percent of the area. The

ecological integrity ratings are relative estimates of

the degree to which ecosystem functions and processes are present and operating. A low rating does

not, in and of itself, imply low productivity or declining conditions; much of the area rated as low

ecological integrity included lands used for agricultural and grazing uses. Finally, 84 percent of the area

with high integrity is on FS- and BLM-administered

lands while 39 percent of the area rated as low is on

FS- and BLM-administered lands.

The results for socioeconomic resiliency are somewhat deceptive. While 63 percent of the area within

the Basin is rated as having low resiliency, 67 percent

of the people of the Basin live in areas with high

resiliency. In terms of where people live, only 17

percent of the population lives in areas of low resiliency. One should not assume that those who live in

areas of low resiliency experience low economic or

social well-being, just as one should not assume that

those living in areas of high resiliency experience

high economic or social well-being. Rather, people

living in areas with low resiliency are in areas that

have a low level of adaptability to change.

12
A few areas like Flathead County, Montana, and

Chelan and western Yakima Counties, Washington,

have both high ecological integrity and socioeconomic resiliency. These areas would likely accommodate and respond to ecological or economic

disruptions better than other areas in the Basin.

Those areas with medium ecological integrity and

medium or high resiliency include Hood River and

Deschutes Counties, Oregon; Missoula County,

Montana; Asotin County, Washington; and, Nez

Perce County, Idaho. Areas of medium or high

socioeconomic resiliency and low ecological integrity

are dominated by the metropolitan counties and

major transportation corridors. Although areas with

high socioeconomic resiliency are more likely to be

in areas of low ecological integrity, it is not always

true. Likewise, although areas with high ecological

integrity are generally associated with areas of low

socioeconomic resiliency, it is not always true. These

relations are not necessarily cause and effect either.

There are several areas where human pressures may

pose risks to high ecological integrity. The Basin is

fortunate in that some of the highest ecological

integrity for both forest and rangelands is in large

contiguous blocks in areas of low current and projected human population density. The greatest

opportunities for restoration activities by Federal

land management agencies are on FS- and BLMadministered lands in those areas with moderate or

low ecological integrity. There are opportunities in

systems exhibiting moderate integrity because they

are resilient and provide for ecological restoration.

Future trends in integrity and resiliency were estimated for three views of the future. These different

futures display the effects of broad management

actions on biophysical and social ecosystem components. Three options were used to describe a set of

possible futures and their consequences: continuation of current management, management emphasizing restoration, and management centered on a

reserve system. The focus was on potential responses

to an array of possible management activities and

future events. Projected trends in ecological integrity

for the three options are stable or improving in the

restoration management option; mostly stable or

improving but with a small area trending downward

in the reserve option; and the majority of the FSand BLM-administered land in the Basin is trending

downward in integrity for the continuation of the

current management option.

In terms of the risks to both the assets of people

living in the Basin and to the ecosystem itself, we

found that continuation of current management will

lead to increasing risks. Both the reserve option and

the restoration option resulted in trends that mostly

stabilized or reduced risks. Developing strategies

that actively manage risks where the interaction of

people and ecological integrity are projected to

increase risks will likely become more important.

Even where ecological integrity is projected to improve with the application of active management,

population increases and the pressures of expanding

demands on resources cause increasing trends in risk.

While these different management options explored

for FS- and BLM-administered lands do not, in

themselves, influence population growth, the ecosystems and the ability to manage change are greatly

influenced by human populations. By the year

2040, the population may double and 80 percent of

the population will likely live in relatively urbanized

environments. Those areas most likely to experience

increased risk owing to increasing human populations are northern Idaho and northwest Montana;

the areas surrounding Spokane and Wenatchee,

Washington; Deschutes County, Oregon; the area

north of Boise, Idaho; and the area between the

Flathead and Lolo National Forests in Montana.

We found that proactive approaches to ecosystem

management within an adaptive framework would

lead to higher ecological integrity and social and

economic resiliency within the Basin. This approach

would recognize the dynamic nature of the interior

ecosystems, their current ecological status, and the

human demands on interior ecosystems. Finally,

these management options show that long-term

sustainability of resources and environments, resiliency of social and economic systems, and meeting

socially desired resource conditions cannot be predicted without continually assessing and monitoring

results of management activities and adjusting management activities accordingly.

13
Characterizing Current Conditions

and Trends

The characterization of historical (early 1800s) and

current conditions within the Basin resulted in these

highlighted findings:

1. There has been a 27 percent decline in multi-layer

and 60 percent decline in single-layer old-forest

structures from historical levels, predominantly in

ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir forest types.

2. Aquatic biodiversity has declined through local

extirpations, extinctions, and introduction of

exotic fish species, and the threat to riparian plants

and animals has increased.

3. Some watershed disturbances, both natural and

human induced, have caused and continue to

cause risks to ecological integrity, especially owing

to isolation and fragmentation of fish habitat.

4. The threat of severe lethal fires has increased by

nearly 20 percent, predominantly in the dry and

moist forest types.

5. Rangeland health and diversity have declined

because of exotic species introductions, historical

grazing, changing fire regimes, agricultural

conversion of native shrublands and herblands,

and woodland expansion in areas that were once

native shrublands and herblands.

6. Human communities and economies of the Basin

have changed and continue to change rapidly

although the rates of change are not uniform.

On FS- and BLM-administered lands, continuing

to manage vegetation (for example, harvest, thin,

and prescribe burns) at historical levels and managing individual stands is unlikely to reverse trends

in vegetation conditions. In the last 100 years, fire

suppression hazards and costs, fire intensity, and

firefighter fatalities have doubled; insect, disease,

and fire susceptibility have increased by 60 percent; blister rust has decreased western white pine

and whitebark pine in moist and cold forested

vegetation types; native grasslands have decreased

by 70 percent; native shrublands have decreased by

30 percent; large residual trees and snags have

decreased by 20 percent; and, old forest structures

have decreased 27 to 60 percent depending on

vegetation type. The greatest changes in landscape

patterns and processes have been in roaded areas

historically managed with intensive treatments.

Overall, we found that there is a limited scientific

understanding of the current status of most individual species and their specific ecology within the

Basin. Numerous species may play key ecological

functions in maintaining ecosystem diversity, productivity, and sustainability. At present, there are

many species of plants (including invertebrates and

vertebrates) that might be in jeopardy of population

declines or local extirpation owing to changes in

their native habitats and environments. We also

found that federally designated threatened, endangered, and candidate species of all taxonomic groups

occur in the Basin.

There are 264 species within the Basin with Federal

listing status under the Endangered Species Act of

1970 of which 27 are threatened or endangered.

Habitat conditions for nearly all species were found

to be more favorable historically. Continuing current management approaches would result in more

species of potential concern than would management

emphasizing restoration or reserves. Management

options aimed at restoring ecosystems are projected

to result in only moderate improvements in habitat.

Current management practices will likely result in

more species with habitat declines. The overall

likelihood of extirpation has increased from historic

to current times and is projected to continue increasing under current management; fewer extirpations

are likely if a restoration approach is used. Species

that are likely in decline are associated with habitat

components that are declining, specifically old forest

structures, native shrublands, and native grasslands.

Habitat degradation is more pronounced at lowerelevation watersheds. Core areas remain for rebuilding and maintaining quality habitat for native

terrestrial species. We identified centers of species

concentration, centers of biodiversity, and hot spots

of species rarity and endemism within the Basin.

14
Salmonid species have experienced declines in habitat, abundance, and life histories. Population strongholds for the key salmonids ranges from less than

1 percent to 32 percent of the occupied range of the

species. The occupied area ranges from 28 percent

to 85 percent of the historic range. Declines for

anadromous species have been the greatest—even if

habitat conditions stabilize, fragmentation, isolation,

and off-site hazards put remaining populations at

risk. Habitat degradation is greatest in lowerelevation watersheds, which include private lands.

Though much of the native ecosystem has been

altered, the core pieces remain for rebuilding and

maintaining functioning native aquatic systems.

Rehabilitating depressed populations of anadromous salmonids cannot rely on habitat improvement alone but requires a concerted effort to

address causes of mortality in all life stages. These

include freshwater spawning and rearing, juvenile

migration, ocean survival, and adult migration.

Social and economic conditions within the Basin

have changed considerably over the last several

decades. People and communities within the Basin

are undergoing rapid change. Social resiliency varies;

drier climates are generally associated with lower

resiliency, such as dry herblands and shrublands

associated with ranching and agricultural communities. Communities that have experienced recent

economic or social disruptions are generally more

resilient. Human attachment to places are important

in determining the acceptability of management

actions. Overall scenic quality within the Basin is

high and is projected to remain high.

Overall, Basin economies are experiencing growth,

especially in metropolitan and recreation counties.

Regional economies are diverse and have high resiliency, but resiliency varies by size of the economic

sectors. FS and BLM activities account for

13 percent of the regional economies of the Basin.

The importance of FS and BLM activities varies

within the Basin; such activities are of the most

importance in eastern Oregon. Recreation is

highly valued as a regional, national, and international resource. At current growth rates, recreation use will double in the next 31 years.

At the Basin level, consistent databases to support

assessments and planning are scarce. An interagency

approach could greatly improve the quality of information, and support continuing assessments that are

part of the adaptive management process.

Findings Related to General Issues

Within the Basin

Accessibility—We found a great deal of ambiguity

about the amount of roads required to satisfy public

needs. Issues include the ecological consequences of

roading, and the effects (both good and bad) on

different kinds of public recreation. Many people

oppose extensive road closures, but at the same time

support improving habitats and reducing erosion.

Management strategies include reducing road densities and redesigning and improving maintenance of

road networks.

Communities—Communities are more complex

than labels such as "timber dependent" make them

out to be. Most communities in the Basin have

mixed economies and their vitality is linked to

factors broader than resource flows from FS- and

BLM-administered lands. In the Basin, both communities and economies associated with agricultural

or ranching operations are less resilient than other

community types.

Fire—It is not possible to "fireproof ecosystems in

the Basin, but the potential of severe fire can be

reduced by proactive land management. In terms of

social and economic outcomes, the greatest potential

management concerns are likely to be in the rural/

urban wildland interface. Severe fires do put human

communities and ecological integrity at risk. Management treatments aimed at reducing severe fire are

not without risk to ecological integrity and to communities, pointing to the need for an integrated

approach to risk management.

Fish—The identification of aquatic strongholds,

areas of high fish community integrity, and other

aquatic information provides a basis for the conservation and restoration of aquatic ecosystems.

15
It also provides a basis for building effective strategies

that can simultaneously benefit terrestrial and

aquatic ecosystems. This strategy could include

protection of high-integrity areas and restoration of

areas with lower integrity.

Forest health—We found that forested ecosystems

have become more susceptible to severe fire and

outbreaks of insects and diseases. Reducing these

risks and hazards involves maintaining forest cover

and structure within a range consistent with longterm disturbance processes.

Rangeland health—Rangeland ecosystems have

been affected by historical overgrazing, woody species encroachment, changes in fire regimes, and

exotic species invasion. Integrated weed management strategies, use of prescribed fire, and managing

the season and intensity of grazing use can result in

improved rangeland health. Grazing strategies with

specific objectives for riparian areas within aquatic

strongholds and with habitats identified for threatened and endangered species would address many of

the concerns of rangeland health related to species

diversity.

Managing risk to ecological integrity—We

found that the management of risks to ecological

integrity involves maintenance of high integrity and

enhancement of areas with low integrity. We found

that an integrated approach will be necessary because

risks to integrity arise from many sources (hydrologic, forest, rangeland, and aquatic as well as economic and social). Reducing risks from one source

may increase risks to another ecological component.

The strategy for risk management will need to be

both integrated and adaptive.

Restoration—We found that there are substantial

opportunities to restore and improve ecological

integrity on forest and rangeland areas with 74

percent of the FS- and BLM-administered lands in

low or moderate integrity. There are opportunities

to restore landscape patterns, improve connectivity in

aquatic and terrestrial habitats, restore vegetation

cover types and structure, and restore hydrologic

functions within subbasins. There are opportunities

to restore these patterns, structures, and vegetation

types to be more consistent with those occurring

under long-term disturbance processes. We found

that opportunities exist, albeit at a different scale, for

restoration in virtually every subbasin in the Basin.

Salvage—We found that salvage activities could

contribute to the achievement of long-term ecological integrity by emphasizing prevention of

insect and disease outbreaks rather than focussing

on the removal of large recently dead trees. Such

an approach would include removing smaller

living trees as part of the overall management

regime and emphasizing stand structure and composition at the watershed level, rather than managing at the stand level. Low risks to ecological

integrity would exist from treating currently

roaded areas, where companion efforts might

include reducing adverse effects associated with

roads. Such approaches can be consistent with

attainment of economic objectives for salvage

activities.

Special forest products—We found an increasing potential for conflicts between recreational,

cultural, subsistence collection, and the growing

commercial collection of products such as huckleberries, mushrooms, and firewood on Federal lands.

Land management strategies will be complicated by

the localized commercial and cultural importance of

these products.

Timber—An ecosystem-based approach to timber

harvest places greater emphasis on outcomes in areas

treated than on volumes of timber extracted (that is,

a focus on area rather than volume regulation). The

implication is that the volumes and mix of species

removed can become a by-product of achieving goals

of stand structure and landscape patterns. Under

this approach, volumes may be more variable than

under past forest management approaches.

16
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Ecosystem Management

Mandate

In July 1993, as part of his plan for ecosystem

management in the Pacific Northwest, President

Clinton directed the Forest Service (FS) to "develop a scientifically sound and ecosystem-based

strategy for management of Eastside forests." The

President further stated that the strategy should be

based on the Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment recently completed by agency scientists as

well as other studies. The Chief of the Forest

Service and the Director of the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) jointly directed through a

Charter (see appendix A) that an ecosystem management framework and assessment be developed

for lands administered by the FS and BLM east of

the Cascade crest in Washington and Oregon and

other lands in the United States within the interior

Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and

Great Basins (hereafter called the Basin) (fig. 1).

Moreover, this ecosystem management approach

was to be founded on basic natural resource management ethics (Thomas

1994).

teams with specific assignments. The teams included Science Integration, Environmental Impact

Statement, Tribal Liaison, Communications,

Administration, and Spatial Analysis. The overall

assignment of the ICBEMP Science Integration

Team (SIT) included a scientific framework,

scientific assessment, and an evaluation of management futures. This document is the Integrated

Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in

the Interior Columbia Basin. This integrative

assessment links landscape, aquatic, terrestrial,

social, and economic characterizations to describe

biophysical and social systems. Integration was

achieved through the use of a framework built

around six goals for ecosystem management and

three different views of the future.

There are nine chapters in this document. The

first two chapters provide an introduction and

describe the assessment process and ecosystem

To accomplish this the Chief

of the Forest Service and the

Director of the Bureau of

Land Management jointly

established the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project

(ICBEMP). The ICBEMP

was organized around several

The Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment (EFEHA) was an assess

ment of the effects of Forest Service management practices on the

sustainability of eastern Oregon and Washington ecosystems. It recommended

methods and practices that could be used to restroe stressed ecosystems. It is

described in several publications. The concepts of ecosystem management and

principles of landscape ecology as described in Volume II (Jensen and others

1994), the major findings of the assessment Volume 111 (Agee 1994, Harvey and

others 1994, Hessburg and others 1994, Huff and others 1995, Irwin and others

1994, Johnson and others 1994, Lehmkuhl and others 1994, Marcot and others

1994, Mclntosh and others 1994, Oliver and others 1994, Robbins and Wolf 1994,

Wissmar and others 1994), the management insights concerning restoration needs

and approaches Volume IV (Everett 1994), and insights from the EFEHA framework for ecosystem management Volume V (Bormann and others 1994).

17
Figure 1—-Topography of the assessment area.

18
concepts that were employed in conducting the

assessment. The Basin's current status is described

in Chapter 3. The fourth and fifth chapters in the

document describe the current and future integrity and resiliency of the Basin. The sixth chapter

discusses the policy questions outlined in the

Charter. The final chapters discuss science gaps,

emerging management issues, findings, and lessons learned.

Assessments

The general planning model (GPM) in the Framework for Ecosystem Management (Haynes and

others 1996, called hereafter the Framework)

describes four integral steps for ecosystem management (fig. 2). Assessments may lead to proposals

for action. The emergence of a proposal triggers

the formal decision-making process of notice and

comment. During the open, public, decisionmaking process, the assessment can be modified.

After the formal review process, decisions are made

and actions are taken. Monitoring these actions

may trigger changes to these actions or new proposals for action. Each step has considerable room

for complexity, integration, and participation as

has been the case with the Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project.

In assessments, planners and managers often

quickly identify a problem but then devote the

bulk of their efforts to developing solutions.

Effective ecosystem management implementation

requires a clear problem definition, a clear understanding of management goals and objectives, and

a clear and solid assessment of biophysical and

social conditions, trends and management opportunities before recommending and selecting solutions. The GPM begins by noting who are the

clients and what are their questions. In the case of

the ICBEMP, the SIT adopted an approach that

began with a set of policy questions and issues.

These questions or issues

reflect contemporary land

questions articulated public concerns about natural resources and the primary decision variables.

They also comprised the spectrum of questions

around which discussions of future management

needs could be focused.

The role of scientific assessments is to describe and

project the biophysical and social ecosystem components over several timeframes and spatial extents

(fig. 3). Understanding the past, present, and

possible future environments including vegetation,

communities, cultures, fish, wildlife, and other

ecosystem components, will help identify ecosystem limitations and

choices.

Assessments represent a

synthesis of current

scientific knowledge

including a description of

uncertainties and assumptions. For Federal land

T

he Ecological Society of

America (1995) defines

ecosystem management as

"...management driven by

explicit goals, executed by

policies, protocols, and

practices, and made adaptable by monitoring and research based on our best

understanding of the ecological interactions and processes necessary to

sustain ecosystem composition, structure, and function."

managers, assessments are

not decision documents.

They do not resolve issues

nor provide direct answers to specific policy

questions. Rather, assessments provide the foundation for proposed

additions or changes to

existing land management direction. They

provide necessary, though not always sufficient,

information for policy discussions and decisions.

The Basin

This assessment covers the interior Columbia

Basin east of the Cascade crest and those portions

of the Klamath and Great Basins within Oregon

(see fig. 1). The Basin's vegetation is nearly half

forested vegetation types (46%). Agriculture

management concerns as

reflected in the Charter for

the ICBEMP. These policy

F

or purposes of this assessment, the Basin is defined as those portions of the

Columbia River basin inside the United States east of the crest of the Cascades in Washington and Oregon and those portions of the Klamath River basin

and the Great Basin in Oregon. The total area of the Basin includes more than 145

million acres (58 million ha) and its boundary spans portions of seven western

states (Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming).

19
Figure 2—Each step of the General Planning Model for ecosystem management has several parts. Because the

model is iterative, external or internal influences can initiate any step in the process and the process never ends.

20
Figure 3—Ecosystem organization can be viewed as a hierarchy. Each level of the hierarchy has both time frames

and spatial extents. A vegetation hierarchy is shown in 3a and a social hierarchy is shown in 3b.

occupies 16 percent of the Basin and represents

what were historically rangeland vegetation types.

Federal Government projects and policies have

played a major role in transforming the social,

economic, and biophysical systems in the Basin.

From the establishment of the forest reserves and

the public domain to federal dam and irrigation

projects, the Federal Government's presence in the

Basin has a long legacy. Currently, the public

lands administered by the BLM and FS constitute

over half of the area of the Basin. In addition,

national parks, monuments, wildlife refuges,

energy facilities, and other public lands cover

8.1 million acres (3.3 million ha).

The transitions among the population of the

Basin are as dramatic as the transitions among the

mountains, plains, and rivers—from a scattered

population of American Indian tribes, to the

immigrants working the mines, mills, and ranches,

to a diverse mix of ethnic backgrounds and urban

and rural dwellers of today. Relative to other parts

of the United States, the current population remains low in the Basin. The ranching and farming communities cluster along mountain valleys

and lower slopes where perennial streams provide

water. Some historically rural settings within the

Basin have given way to expanding population

centers. Spokane, Pasco/Kennewick/Richland

("Tri-Cities"), Yakima, and Wenatchee, Washington; Boise, Idaho; Bend, Oregon; and Missoula,

Montana, are examples of places where once rural

areas are now urban environments.

The Basin supplies goods and services to an expanding, changing, and demanding human population. The most dramatic changes have occurred

in areas that attract retirees or are centers of recreation. Half of the Basin's population have rural

lifestyles, particularly agricultural lifestyles, which

is considerably higher than the national average of

20 percent. Moreover, nearly 50 percent of the

workforce is employed in the service and trade

sectors with around 10 percent employed in the

farm and agriculture sectors.

Today, public perceptions and expectations regarding management of Federal lands in the

Northwest have led to increases in the protection

of unique ecosystems and species, increased concern with riparian areas, and experimentation

with methods of forest and rangeland management. Increasingly these management strategies

strive to retain features found in "natural" ecosystems and to mimic natural disturbance regimes.

Tribal governments are concerned about culturally

and economically significant resources, and other

21
stakeholders1

 are concerned about the availability

of commodities from Federal lands. Those with

environmental interests express concern about the

conditions in the forest, rangeland, and aquatic

systems and particularly wildlife species in these

systems. Issues arise from conflicting values, and

often involve more than one spatial extent or

timeframe. Therefore, issues play a major role in

defining analysis boundaries, types of assessments,

and data collection. The ICBEMP was initiated

to address these issues as they relate to public land

management.

Science Team

The Science Integration Team was composed of

Federal employees from the FS, BLM, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) and Bureau of Mines (BOM). Contractors were brought in for specific tasks and assignments. The SIT was headquartered in Walla

Walla, Washington. Detached analysis units were

located in Missoula and Kalispell, Montana; Boise,

Moscow and Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; Portland and

Corvallis, Oregon; Seattle, Spokane and

Wenatchee, Washington; and Reno and Las Vegas,

Nevada. Its purpose was to develop a framework

for ecosystem management, a scientific assessment

of the interior Columbia Basin (of which this

document is a part), and an evaluation of the

alternatives in the Environmental Impact Statement. The SIT was organized around the functional groups of landscape ecology (physical and

vegetative resources), terrestrial resources, aquatic

resources, economics, and social sciences. A staff

of Geographic Information System (GIS) specialists supported the spatial and data processing

needs of the science staffs.

The SIT identified, designed, evaluated, and

integrated all information for the science products

associated with the project. The SIT integrated

the information brought forward by five functional groups and described the tradeoffs and

potential consequences of interactions. This

'In this document stakeholders are defined as tribal, state,

county, local governments, and private landholders; as well as

individuals and groups representing local, regional, and

national interests in Federal land management.

document, An Integrated Scientific Assessment for

Ecosystem Management for the Interior Columbia

Basin and portions of the KLamath and Great Basins

(hereafter called the Integrated Assessment) examined the current and future condition of the Basin

by integrating the information brought forward in

the detailed assessments of ecosystem components

(Quigley and Arbelbide 1996, hereafter called the

Component Assessment2). This integrated assessment also examined probable outcomes of management under several futures. More detailed

explanations of databases, models, and information layers will be published later, and will provide

useful information to both public and private land

managers.

Basin Assessment Objectives

The changes in public perceptions and expectations regarding Federal land management as outlined in the Charter led to the following objectives

of this integrated assessment:

• Provide a basic characterization of landscape,

terrestrial, aquatic, social and economic systems

and processes of the Interior Columbia Basin and

portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. This

characterization should include diversity, distribution, and abundance of plant and animal

species; watershed conditions; and economic,

cultural, and community trends. The assessment

will be bounded in time, space, issues being

considered, and depth of analysis.

• Emphasize conditions, resources, and interactions within and among the components listed in

the first objective.

• Describe probable outcomes (changes in goods

and services, ecological states and conditions) of

continued and potential natural resource management practices and trends.

• Describe risks and tradeoffs of management

actions.

2The Component Assessment is composed of separate chapters

consisting of Biophysical, Landscape Dynamics, Aquatic,

Terrestrial, Economic, Social, and Information Systems

Development and Documentation (Spatial Analysis).

Hereafter chapters are referenced by chapter name (for

example, aquatic findings would be referenced to as Component Assessment—Aquatic).

22
Figure 4—Ecological Reporting Units were used to differentiate the characterizations within the Basin.

23
Assessment Process

Assessments can differ not only in geographic

extent, such as river basins versus watersheds, but

also in the level of spatial and temporal resolution

(see the discussion in Chapter 2 for further detail).

Regional assessments show short- and long-term

trends over broad areas (multiple river basins),

while sub-regional assessments generally have

higher data resolution and supply quantitative

information on patterns and processes within

smaller geographic areas (watersheds) and over

shorter lengths of time. The Basin was characterized over different spatial extents and timeframes

around the five broad functional groups (landscape, aquatic, terrestrial, social, and economic).

The Basin assessment analyzed the rates of

change and the cause and effect relations of

various social and biophysical elements, but

some characteristics made linking biophysical

and social processes difficult. First, there are

differences in the geographic extent of commonly available biophysical and social science

data. Much of the biophysical data is available

at lower geographic units where the least is

known about human behavior (how individuals

respond to change). Second, there are also

differences in the treatment of time. For social

processes, various interactions are observed only

for a specific point in time often described as

annual or in some other temporal unit. Biophysical processes, while specific in time, are

often described at longer time intervals (for

example decades). Finally, there is the problem

that biophysical processes are typically described for some fixed spatial extent (such as a

square kilometer or a river reach) while social

process are a function of human populations,

which themselves have a highly variable relation

with different spatial extents.

Ideally, an integrated assessment would consist of

information that was integrated from its inception.

Most resource information, however, is collected

by individuals who, based on training, have different perspectives. To facilitate the analysis and

presentation of information and results on geographic areas smaller than the entire Basin, the

Basin was divided into thirteen geographic areas

called Ecological Reporting Units (ERUs). Figure

4 shows the delineation of ERUs. These areas

were intended to describe both biophysical and

social systems but the ERUs were identified and

delineated based on recommendations by the

terrestrial and aquatics staffs (see Jensen and others

1996, Component Assessment— Biophysical for more

detail). The aquatics staff proposed boundaries

based primarily on watershed characteristics,

stream data, and general data about the distribution of aquatic species. The terrestrial staff proposed boundaries based on groupings of potential

vegetation groups. These two approaches yielded

similar delineations and were combined using

subwatersheds (6th code hydrologic units) as the

basic mapping unit to create the ERUs (see figure

5 for the relation between the Basin, a subbasin,

and a subwatershed). In the Basin there are approximately 7,500 6th code watersheds called

"subwatersheds" [approximately 8,000 ha (20,000

acres) each]. To further facilitate discussions, these

subwatersheds were grouped into 164 subbasins

(4th code hydrologic units). The social science

equivalent to the subbasin is the county (there are

100 counties in the Basin). Various social processes are discussed either at the county level or for

groupings of counties.

The SIT used ERUs to describe biophysical environments, characterize ecological processes, discuss the

effects of management activities, observe trends from

past management, and to identify management

opportunities. Some ecological and most socioeconomic processes and functions did not conform well

to the ERU boundaries. Where this occurred the

discussion and reporting was within a context

deemed more appropriate. Some other topics could

only be addressed for the entire Basin.

An integrative approach linking landscape,

aquatic, terrestrial, social, and economic models

was developed to link the biophysical and social

systems. The goals outlined in the Framework and

the questions outlined in the Charter guided the

24
Figure 5—An example of hydrologic hierarchy from subwatersheds to subbasins.

25
integrated biophysical and social characterization

of the Basin. The SIT used several management

options as a way to display the possible effects of

broad management actions on biophysical and

social ecosystem components.

In this assessment, we recognize that a special relationship exists between the American Indian tribal

governments and the United States Government.

The sovereign status of the American Indian tribes is

recognized through treaties and executive orders with

those tribes and special provisions of law. These

treaties and laws set the tribes apart from all other

U.S. populations and define a set of Federal agency

responsibilities. There are 22 recognized tribes in the

Basin. Each tribe is a separate entity, and relationships need to be established with each tribe; government-to-government relations differ in format

among tribes.

26
CHAPTER 2

ECOSYSTEM

MANAGEMENT

The notion of ecosystem management is evolving; so

too are the concepts and principles underlying it.

Frameworks for ecosystem management suggest that

ecosystem management requires: (1) goals to establish a direction and purpose; (2) an assessment of

resources at multiple resolutions, timeframes, and

geographic extents; (3) decision variables and decisions; (4) a strategy for implementing decisions;

(5) a monitoring program to evaluate the outcomes

of these decisions; and (6) adaptive management

approaches (see Bormann and others 1994, Haynes

and others 1996). Ecosystem management seeks to

integrate biophysical and social disciplines.

Ecosystem management goals for Federal lands in

the Basin reflect changing societal values, new

information, and the desire to maintain the integrity of ecosystems, including the maintenance of

long-term ecosystem health and the provision of

products and services within an ecosystems capabilities. Ecosystem management can be approached from the standpoint of managing

ecosystems based on scientific knowledge and an

understanding of what society wants the results of

management actions to be. Scientific approaches

can be used to characterize biophysical and social

processes, and to measure outcomes. Public participation processes are one of many ways to determine the acceptance of management actions used

to achieve specific goals. Monitoring can be used

to determine baseline conditions, whether implementation achieves objectives, and whether assumed relations are valid.

Four broad principles have guided the SIT's efforts

to understand ecosystems. The reasoning behind

these principles is explained in greater detail in the

Framework. First, ecosystems are dynamic; they

change with or without human influence. Existing ecosystem conditions are a product of natural

and human history—including fire, flood, and

other disturbances; climatic shifts; and geological

events such as landslides and volcanic eruptions.

Second, although ecosystems are dynamic, there

are limits to their ability to withstand change and

still maintain their integrity, diversity, and productivity. Third, our efforts are guided by an increasing understanding of how larger ecosystem

patterns and processes relate to smaller ecosystem

patterns and processes. Fourth, there are limits in

our ability to predict how ecosystems may change.

Photos 1 a and 1 b illustrate that terrestrial and

aquatic ecosystems are dynamic.

These principles suggest that scientists and land

managers carefully observe and study ecosystems

and adjust their actions as new information becomes available. They also reflect an appreciation

that people are part of, and not separate from,

ecosystems. Determining society's current and

future expectations for public land outputs (goods,

functions, and conditions) is the fundamental

determinant of stewardship.

As described earlier, the general planning model

for the implementation of ecosystem management

has four iterative steps: monitoring, assessment,

decision making, and implementation (see fig. 2).

It is an adaptive model that combines both bio27
Photos la and lb—This Blue Mountain photo pair shows the change in stream, meadow, and riparian conditions between 1919 and 1992. Notice the forests in the background are

more densely stocked. (Source: Skovlin and Thomas 1995.)

28
physical and socioeconomic processes and goals.

Societal expectations for outputs (including ecological conditions) are an important feature. The

model also recognizes that management objectives

differ between public, tribal, and private lands.

For private lands, this becomes more complicated

as individual owners differ in land management

objectives and how they respond to market and

non-market (including regulatory) incentives.

This model provides a context for how the different types of information might be integrated in

conjunction with management goals.

Ecosystem Management

Goals

Humans have diverse goals for ecosystem management, which in turn reflect diverse cultural perspectives. These goals are in the domain of public

choice and not science. They are the result of

decisions that follow from democratic and institutional processes and are stated or inferred in laws,

regulations, policy statements, decisions, and

budget direction. For example, the legislation

guiding the management of FS- and BLM-adminlstered lands in the early 1900s centered on protecting resources and reducing flooding. Goals

shifted more toward providing commodities and

stabilizing employment during the middle of the

century. Concurrent with the environmental

movement of the 1960s and 1970s, the emphasis

shifted away from implicit goals toward establishing a planning process that developed specific

goals. This shift is illustrated in current procedural laws requiring federal agencies to identify

and disclose the effects of management activities

on Federal land (NEPA 1969), and to develop

long-range land use or general management plans

(RPA 1974, NFMA 1976, and FLPMA 1976).

Currently, land and resource management plans

which establish detailed goals, objectives, and

standards are developed by the FS and BLM for

each administrative unit (generally a national

forest or BLM resource area). Legal mandates

require Federal land managers to manage habitat

to maintain viable populations of existing native

and desired non-native vertebrate species (36 CFR

219.19). Regulations also require Federal land

managers to provide for diversity of plant and

animal communities, including endemic and

desirable naturalized plant and animal species .

consistent with the overall multiple use objectives

of the planning area [36 CFR 219.26 and

219.17(g)]. Managers are also required to consider the American Indian treaties and the associated trust responsibilities. The Chief of the Forest

Service recently emphasized the importance of

managing the National Forests to maintain the

integrity of ecosystems (Thomas 1994).

This direction provides insights into the goals of

ecosystem management for the agencies managing

Federal lands, but it does not provide a formal,

clear statement of ecosystem management goals.

In the absence of explicitly defined goals by the

agencies and society, we assumed that the general

purpose for ecosystem management is to maintain

ecosystem integrity or system integrity, where

system integrity is defined as the degree to which

all components and their interactions are represented and functioning. Ecosystem, in this sense,

is being used in its broadest form, where it encompasses social as well as biophysical components.

Ecosystem integrity and resiliency are rooted in

scientific concepts that inherently reflect human

values (see for example, Haynes and others 1996,

and Wickium and Davies 1995). These human

values include the normative purpose of maintaining the integrity of a combined natural and cultural ecosystem. Ecosystems are defined as having

high integrity when their components have no

substantive impairment in structure, composition,

or function. In this sense, a living system exhibits

integrity if, when subjected to disturbance, it

maintains its capacity for self-organization. For

the biophysical, social, and economic components

of ecosystems, resiliency is denned as the capacity

of these components to adapt to change. These

end-states may include some that are judged by

management and the public as being "normal and

good" but that may not be pristine or naturally

29
whole. Thus, there is a social context to ecological

goals, and an ecological context to social goals.

Science can predict how systems respond to

change, but it cannot state that one change is

better than another. Judgments about whether a

system condition is good or bad must be made

within the context of social values. This raises the

question of how to measure integrity, since the

judgment of how resilient or complete an ecosystem is depends on subjectively chosen indicators.

In that sense, the integrity of ecosystems is more

an expression of environmental policy than scientific theory (Woodley and others 1993). Managers

may be reluctant to include societal issues and

values in the definition (and evaluation) of ecosystem integrity. However, because maintaining the

integrity of ecosystems is a management goal, it by

definition, needs to reflect the values of both

managers and users. Finally, to define the integrity

of ecosystems is to define a set of biophysical and

social characteristics to be monitored for change

from or toward specified values.

The Framework lays out how the SIT assumed the

overall purpose of ecosystem management—to

restore and maintain ecological integrity and social

and economic resiliency—and six societal goals for

ecosystem management that would provide benchmarks for evaluating changes in ecosystem integrity and social and economic resiliency. The six

assumed goals are:

• Maintain evolutionary and ecological processes.

• Manage with an understanding of multiple

ecological domains and evolutionary timeframes.

• Maintain viable populations of native and desired non-native species.

• Encourage social and economic resiliency.

• Manage for places with definable values: a "sense

of place."

• Manage to maintain a mix of ecosystem goods,

functions, and conditions that society wants.

These goals represent normative judgments about

what best indicates ecosystem integrity, and social

and economic resiliency. By addressing these

goals, risk and uncertainty from unpredictable

events may be reduced. The goals also acknowledge important social values derived from noncommodity use of natural resources. They

acknowledge the extensive range of values and

choices involved in managing for the integrity of

ecosystems and social and economic resiliency.

The remainder of this section presents a discussion

around each goal in the context of the Basin. It

summarizes early SIT discussions where tentative

findings were used to clarify our descriptions of

the goals. The underlying documentation for the

various statements in the section are given in the

Component Assessment.

Goal 1. Maintain evolutionary and

ecological processes

An ecological process is a sequence of events relating environmental, living, and nonliving components of an ecosystem. It may result in some

outcome that in turn affects and is part of other

processes. For example, some past management

practices have increased erosion and sedimentation, which resulted in increased amounts of soil

in streams and river pools. This reduced the

amount of food available for fish species and the

ability to spawn successfully, resulting in fewer fish

available to humans and other species that depend

on them. Ecological processes include those that

operate at very small spatial and temporal extents,

such as the growth of cells, and those that operate

at very large spatial and temporal extents, such as

plate tectonics. Ecological processes such as hydrologic cycles, nitrogen cycles, carbon cycles, and

plant succession are essential for maintaining the

productive capacity of the air, land, and water

upon which life depends.

History demonstrates the propensity of humans to

alter ecological processes. An example in the Basin

is the emphasis on harvesting of large trees.3 Large

trees were typical in landscapes maintained by

low-intensity surface fires. Harvest of these trees

over the last two centuries did not parallel the pre3The definition of large trees varies by vegetation type. For

pondcrosa pine and Douglas-fir it generally means diameters

greater than 21 inches (53 cm). The selection of a specific

diameter is related more to available data sets than to ecological definitions.

30
European disturbance regime, and consequently

altered associated vegetation structures and disturbance processes. The resulting landscapes were

less diverse (more simplified), more chaotic in

terms of disturbance intensity, and less tolerant of

fire, insects, and diseases. An additional ramification of this harvest strategy was that road development was often concentrated on landscape settings

sensitive to erosion and sediment transport.

Continued human population growth in the

Basin will increase demand for recreation and for

housing in urban/wildland interface zones. This

makes it increasingly difficult to maintain ecological processes and to reduce

risk to human life and property. For example, in the

Snake Headwaters ERU the

human population density on

private land is expected to

increase from 20 to 50 people

per square kilometer (30-80

people/sq. mile) increasing

risk to ecological processes.

The ERUs with highest

projected development in the

urban/wildland interface and

fire-prone zones include the

Snake Headwaters, Owyhee

Uplands, Upper Snake,

Northern Glaciated Mountains, and Lower Clark Fork.

In general, past forest management on Federal

lands dispersed multiple uses across all landscapes,

emphasizing commodity production. This has led

to areas where ecological processes within landscapes are not fully functioning and have lower

capacity to meet human needs and values.

The prerequisite to management actions is an

understanding of the basic biophysical conditions

and processes within an area (geology, soil, climate, landform) and their associated hydrologic

and vegetation disturbance regimes, in relation to

native biota and human habitats. To meet this

goal, the highest priority for maintaining ecosystem processes would be in areas where the processes have been the least disrupted. The highest

priority for restoration would be in areas where

systems can be recovered and the knowledge and

technology for recovery are available. A high

priority for research would be to identify those

areas where systems are degraded or in jeopardy,

and where the methods and the technology for

recovery can be developed.

Among the ERUs dominated by forest land, the

Blue Mountains and the Lower Clark Fork have

the greatest potential for restoring and maintaining ecosystem processes. Many vegetation and

hydrologic processes have been impaired in these

A disturbance is an event that changes the trend of ecosystem development;

disturbances are inherent to ecological processes. When disturbance regimes occur with an intensity, periodicity, or spaciat extent outside their accustomed character, evolutionary trends are compromised. For instance, fuel

accumulations and shifts to more fire-susceptible tree species have resulted in

less frequent, but more intense forest fires that can disrupt nutrient cycles, food

chains, and decomposition processes. Floods are a disturbance essential to developing and maintaining riparian conditions. They establish cross-section stream

bed characteristics, flush debris and accumulated fine sediment, and deliver material for soil development to the flood plain. Because floods may be detrimental

to human life and property, in flood plains we attempt to control or minimize their

impact; in so doing we often disrupt the accustomed processes.

ERUs, but they still have high diversity of native

plant and animal species, although populations are

small and scattered. Proactive management at the

watershed scale could provide significant improvements while diminishing further risks. Restoration programs slated for the urban/wildland

interface zone pose the lowest risks to ecological

integrity when applied in previously roaded portions of dry forest, shrub, and grass vegetative

zones.

Among the ERUs dominated by rangeland, the

Upper Snake, Owyhee Uplands, and Northern

Great Basin have the highest potential for a posi31
tive response to restoring and maintaining ecosystem processes. These ERUs have high rates of

decline of vegetation and hydrologic processes, but

retain high residual native species diversity. The

Owyhee Uplands and Upper Snake also have high

potential for increases in human population.

Much could be accomplished through proactive

management in the urban/wildland interface.

Management could likely meet human and ecological objectives, while diminishing further risks

to ecological integrity.

Goal 2. Manage with an

understanding of multiple ecological

domains and evolutionary

timeframes

An ecological domain is a large unit of land containing repeating patterns of life forms, climate,

and physiographic features. The Northern Rocky

Mountains, Great Basin, and the Interior Columbia Basin are examples of ecological domains.

There are broad differences among ecological

domains in their biophysical conditions, evolutionary processes, and their ability to provide

goods and services for people. Evolutionary processes control how systems adapt and change in

relation to time and disturbances. Ecological

evolution is the integrated development through

time of cellular processes, species, communities,

and landscapes in relation to disturbances and

their surrounding environment.

Similarly, landscapes evolve as a result of interactions between geology, climate, soils, landform,

hydrologic regimes, humans, wildlife, and vegetation. Knowledge of the factors and relations

comprising the biophysical and socioeconomic

characteristics of ecological domains provides

understanding of the evolutionary interactions of

disturbances (such as fire, insects and disease,

timber harvest and management, grazing, drought,

floods, volcanic eruptions) with climate, geology,

landform, and soils. This knowledge gives us the

ability to understand how systems evolved and

developed. In addition, there is the issue of

intergenerational transfers: how will the Basin's

ecological systems provide ecosystem goods, functions, and conditions for present and future human generations?

Species have evolved over the past thousands or

millions of years adapting in part to changes in

their environment. But human-caused disruptions

of evolutionary processes in the Basin, such as the

introduction of exotic species, can take place

within decades. Such introductions can disrupt

the relations of native species with their environment and alter evolutionary pathways. Another

driver of an evolutionary process is climate change.

Climate in the Basin has been highly variable over

time. Drought (<70% of average annual precipitation) is relatively common, especially on rangelands where some plant and animal species (and

their ecological functions) have adapted to wide

fluctuations.

Managing natural resources in the context of

multiple ecological domains can help explain the

relations and dependencies that occur among

ocean and terrestrial systems. The importance of

ocean conditions, which are linked to global

atmospheric circulation patterns, to anadromous

salmonid life cycles has become understood in the

last 15 years. Traditionally, research attributed

variation in population size to freshwater conditions. Recent work strongly suggests that the

abundance of salmonids and other fishes may be

affected by short- and long-term variation in

atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns.

Northeast Pacific Ocean conditions shifted in the

mid-1970s and salmonid populations along the

entire west coast of North America have responded to these regional changes. One consequence of this is that management actions directed

at restoring freshwater habitats of salmonids need

to include the context and information about the

fluctuating numbers brought on by climate and

oceanic changes.

There is a need to recognize that management

activities may affect ecosystems over multiple

ecological domains and multiple timeframes. It is

32
difficult to predict ecosystem trends and the

ultimate outcomes of management actions.

The practical implication of this is that today's

management actions can reduce options for future

generations. At the same time, large events are

inevitable, and responses to these events play a

major role in ecosystem development. Investment

strategies for resource production or restoration

can be designed to improve success and reduce

risk of investment loss, given this type of understanding. By planning activities in the context

of multiple ecological domains and evolutionary

timeframes, natural resource management can

provide buffers to large events (such as volcanic

eruptions, fires, and floods) that may have significant ecological effects.

To date, natural resource management strategies in

the Basin generally have not considered broad

spatial and temporal views of how species, communities, and landscapes evolved in relation to

ecosystem processes. Most project activities on

FS- or BLM-administered lands are, at most,

watershed-, single species-, or issue-specific and do

not usually consider the broader context in which

management actions operate. At the largest extent

current management usually covers a single Forest

or BLM District and has resulted in less complex

landscape patterns. In part, this is the consequence of the institutional framework of the FS

and BLM that is focused on decentralized shortterm and issue-specific results. Although there are

notable exceptions, previous management practices rarely considered managing the structure and

composition of whole landscapes in a manner that

was consistent with biophysical conditions and

disturbance processes that maintained a mosaic of

conditions over landscapes. As a result, a single

large event (such as fire, floods, or volcanic eruptions, as well as the introduction and spread of

exotic species or diseases) could eliminate a plant

or animal community. Management activities that

consider only short-term results may interrupt

millennia of evolutionary processes in a span of

decades. This short-term vision may lead to ecosystems developing in unforeseen ways, causing

increased likelihood of unpredictable events.

Humans have the potential to increase the rate of

change of evolutionary processes. Human activities have altered terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems

in the Basin to the extent that restoring the original conditions through management activities is

nearly impossible in many areas. Humans are

currently responsible for moving more material

about the surface of the earth than any other

geomorphic process. They have introduced exotic

species and toxins that have spread into native

communities that are not well-adapted to the

newcomers. Road building, urbanization, and

pollution have reduced the diversity, resiliency,

and productivity of the Basin. Exposure and

erosion of soils that had co-developed with their

vegetation cover alter the succession and productivity of many Basin ecosystems.

Goal 3. Maintain viable populations

of native and desired non-native

species

There is public concern that ecosystem management maintain viable populations of native and

desired non-native species. In a broad sense,

viability can be considered as the likelihood of

continued existence of well-distributed populations of a species throughout its current range, to

specified future time periods (Marcot and

Murphy, in press). A population can be defined as

a set of plant or animal organisms of a given species, occurring in the same area, that could interbreed. A population with high viability persists in

well-distributed patterns for long periods (century

or longer). A viable population is able to survive

fluctuations in demographic, genetic, and environmental conditions and maintain its vigor and

potential for evolutionary adaptation over a long

period of time (Soule 1987).

Each species in an ecosystem has specific ecological functions. These functions are linked to other

species and functions. Removal of a species may

eliminate or compromise a function for which

33
there is no functional substitute or equivalent.

The functions of individual species are not completely understood or known, and therefore effects

of their removal on ecosystem integrity are not

known.

Viability is important because an ecological community, landscape, and ecoregion with a rich

complement of viable populations of plants and

animals has a greater capacity to maintain its

ecological community structure in the face of

disturbances. Maintaining the viability of individual species and species richness (number of

species) alone are not adequate objectives for

managing for biodiversity. Ensuring viable populations is also necessary for long-term ecological

integrity. Viable populations help meet Trust

responsibilities and keep the agencies within the

framework of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

and other legal mandates.

There is no one static condition that constitutes a

set of native species. Human activities as well as

natural changes affect the ebb and flow of species

and communities. Native is not necessarily permanent, so it is a challenge to define a particular

"native" baseline from which changes can be

measured.

Desired non-native terrestrial species include

introduced vertebrate game species, invertebrates

introduced for controlling introduced pest invertebrates or plants, and non-native plants. Chukar,

gray partridge, wild turkey, and ring-necked

pheasant (see appendix E for listings of species

common and scientific names) are the primary

desirable non-native terrestrial vertebrate species in

the Basin, particularly in the agricultural regions.

Changes in agricultural practices to "clean farming" have resulted in lower populations in many

areas, notably the Columbia Plateau. Introduction

of these non-native species may have adverse

effects on other vertebrates (primarily birds),

invertebrates, or plants, but ecological information

is scant. Plant species that have been brought into

rangelands and forests, including crested wheatgrass and other grasses used for range conversion

or restoration, are desirable or undesirable depending on one's preference for commodity production

versus maintaining native communities.

Desired non-native fishes, (such as brook trout

and stocked rainbow trout), are spread widely

throughout the Basin and form the basis for

recreational fishing. The thousands of large

and small reservoirs and the warm waters of the

lower major river systems within the Basin have

created an important bass and walleye fishery,

which harms anadromous salmon recovery

because of the walleye's predatory behavior.

These warm water fisheries continue to increase

in economic importance.

Angling for native fishes has become highly

regulated either as part of the Snake River

anadromous chinook recovery plan or, (as in

the case of John Day steelhead trout) as maintenance of genetic diversity. For native resident

fish, regulations include catch and release,

designated wild fish streams, and special closures around migration or spawning times. For

American Indians, the significance of salmon

and steelhead transcend economic values. The

social and ecological pressures to provide desired non-native species and to maintain native

species will continue to challenge decision and

policy makers at all levels of government.

The societal choice to maintain or restore species

viability hinges ultimately on human land uses

and human needs versus the needs of other species. For example, there has been widespread

national support for the protection of rare plant

communities on public lands. There is also sentiment for modifying endangered species laws to

maintain local economies and communities while

at the same time having effective habitat conservation strategies.

Private landowners play an integral role in maintaining species viability. For example, private

landowners often control the water rights and

generally own the historically most productive

reaches of streams in the broad valleys and at low

to mid-elevations, while public lands are concentrated in the upper reaches and headwaters. Pro34
viding spawning and rearing habitat at different

seasons and in different locations within a

subbasin is important to the likely persistence of

all salmonid life history stages and forms. Dams,

road networks, urbanization, and agricultural

development have precluded a continuous ribbon

of productive fish habitat, good riparian conditions, and fish passage up and down the river

systems in the Basin. However, opportunities are

numerous in the Basin to restore small reaches as

way stations in the network that will be essential

to fish moving up and down river systems to

appropriate habitats.

Goal 4. Encourage social and

economic resiliency

Resiliency, here, means adaptability, not necessarily a return to some prior state or condition. In

the social sense, adaptability means the capacity

for humans to change their behaviors, economic

relationships, and social institutions such that

economic vitality is maintained and social stresses

are minimized. Resilient communities are those

that tend to have a diverse economic base, forward-looking leadership, a pleasing look and

"feel," a cohesive sense of community, and the

physical capacity for expansion (such as, roads,

sewer, and water). Resilient communities are

adaptable to changes in federal policy, indeed,

some Basin communities would be largely unaffected by any changes in Federal land management. Communities that lack the above-stated

qualities are ill-equipped to deal with change.

Communities (within the Basin) differ in their

dependency on Federal lands and policies. There

are formalized requirements to consider (though

not to perpetuate) community dependency in the

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA

1976). These requirements identify local economic relations to federally managed lands that

deal with the supply of materials and commodities. However, communities may depend on and

benefit from federal ecosystem goods, functions,

and conditions in other ways. For example, a

national forest may provide significant amenity

resources, resources that provide the scenic backdrop and physical setting attractive to business

owners and their workers. Such communities may

be dependent on natural resources, but in ways

different than traditional extractive definitions

imply. For example, communities may be economically dependent on government facilities,

such as FS and BLM offices, defense bases, or

research programs. Resident Federal workers

themselves contribute to their communities economically and by providing experience and knowledge that might not otherwise be available in a

small town. Native American communities can be

both economically dependent and culturally

dependent on the landscapes that provide links to

ancestors. In addition, a community may depend

on federally managed resources as a source of clean

water for domestic, agricultural, and commercial

purposes.

Residents of natural resource-based communities

are concerned about the uncertainties of flows of

commodities under current management. These

concerns lead to an anxiety that revolves around

people wanting to retain their community structure and accustomed lifestyles. In these communities residents believe that perpetual access to

federal timber, grazing, and minerals is critical to

their personal economic stability and the future of

their community. Shifts in either demand for, or

supply of, natural resources (timber, grazing) can

cause unanticipated changes in a community's

economic base and social and economic wellbeing.

Communities with higher levels of social and

economic resiliency, can adapt to changes in management of forests and rangelands. This permits

forests and rangelands to be managed with greater

flexibility and options in an attempt to meet broad

societal demands, and to promote ecosystem

processes and functions. Less adaptable communities may become sensitive to changes in demands

for commodities, leading to community instability, stress, and anxiety. If communities cannot

adapt to change, there may be social and political

35
pressure to maintain flows of resource commodities inconsistent with broader societal goals and

with maintaining the integrity of ecosystems.

Within the Basin, resilient communities tend to be

those that are larger, those with active community

leadership, or those that have confronted change.

Agricultural and ranching communities tend to

rate lower in resiliency when compared to other

types of communities.

Goal 5. Manage for places with

definable values

An important element of ecosystem management

is the growing appreciation of intangible spiritual,

cultural, and individual meanings that people

assign to physical environments. Sense of place

can encompass the feelings and emotions one has

for favorite or special places based on one's experience, the spiritual values that American Indians

identify with landscapes, or even the unique character or identity that people associate with specific

communities. In other words, sense of place is the

meanings and qualitative attachments that people

give to specific locations on a landscape.

The relationships between humans and their

cultural landscapes are also being increasingly

identified. For example, landscape meanings can

be sacred to American Indians, but identifying

them for an ecosystem assessment is difficult

because of a cultural reluctance to expose such

locations and their meanings. Other cultures and

communities of interest may assign different

meanings to the same place, as when Asians may

define a place as an important source of herbs,

while Latinos may define the same place as an

important source for tree boughs.

For people across the nation, there may be locations that contain important cultural and individual meanings, for example, the place where the

Battle of White Bird Hill occurred, the Lewis and

Clark campsites along the Lochsa River, or the

Seven Devils area (see photo 2). While these

places share a consistent definition, not all people

may have the same depth of understanding, and

Photo 2—The area called the Seven Devils has both cultural and recreational significance.

36
individually recognized boundaries may not coincide. The different ways people define places

(with quantifiable measures and physical processes

or with unquantifiable emotional significance) can

cause barriers in communication, and sometimes

conflict.

With the projected Basin population growth and

increased demand for recreation, scenery, and

commodities, meanings of place for different

communities may change rapidly and increasingly

come into conflict. In general, humans prefer

meaningful places to be stable or evolve slowly, a

preference in contrast to the anticipated rapid rate

of change. Rapid population growth and shifts in

the economic base away from natural resource

commodities may also affect community character.

Goal 6. Manage to maintain the mix

of ecosystem goods, functions, and

conditions that society wants

Ecosystems have many values to society. There

are ecosystem goods that are removed such as

minerals, timber, forage, mushrooms, huckleberries, wildlife, and fish (see photos 3 and 4).

Some goods are not removed when used, but

instead remain to be enjoyed by more than one

person—these include a whole host of goods

associated with recreation activities such as

beautiful scenery and wildlife to view, and

primitive country to experience. Finally there

are goods that are valued simply for their existence such as salmon, grizzly bears, gray wolves,

Photo 3—Forest Service employee examining a log deck with a purchaser. FS- and BLM- administered lands accounted for 46 percent of harvest in the Basin in 1991.

37
Photo 4— American Indian picking huckleberries in an area of traditional cultural significance.

and large old trees. In addition to the goods

listed, ecosystem functions include beneficial

processes such as carbon sequestration, hydrologic cycles, and nutrient cycles. Ecosystem

conditions include states people want to find

on the land, including old-growth forests,

clean air, clean water, unroaded areas, and

scenic integrity.

Conflict over goals for ecosystem management

has increased as the desired mix of ecosystem

goods, functions, and conditions has expanded

and changed over time. Because society's wants

and needs will continue to evolve and knowledge about ecosystems will continue to improve, managers try to provide options for

maintaining ecosystem integrity. Federal laws,

regulations, and judicial conditions set the

context for ecosystem management. Land

managers can also keep abreast of society's

wants and needs by working with stakeholders

at all levels to define the mix of ecosystem

goods, functions, and conditions that are

deemed necessary. This will help society and

managers recognize the trade-offs among ecosystems' outputs. Using adaptive strategies and

sensing what society wants will bring a higher

probability of achieving the ongoing goal of

ecosystem integrity.

In this goal it is important to define both society and ecosystem goods, functions, and conditions. Society is broadly defined—it includes

interests wherever located (in the Basin or

across the country) and future generations. The

point is to include in the analysis all values

society holds for these lands. Interests of future

generations can be explored through the options available to them under different management directions. The analysis applies to what

the Federal lands in the Basin can provide

society, and shows important variations among

ecological regions within the Basin. The distribution of the value of ecosystem goods, functions, and conditions between various

components of society—the "who benefits?"

issue—needs to be explored as well.

38
Differences exist in the distribution of ecosystem benefits between generations: some management approaches favor current generations,

others favor future generations. Similarly, some

approaches to ecosystem management favor

local over national interests, or vice versa. The

challenge is to identify desired ecosystem goods,

functions, and conditions. Current political/

institutional approaches were designed in a past

era with less knowledge about the time and

space consequences of management activities.

Future ecosystem management needs to consider longer timeframes and larger areas. Moreover, current natural resource institutions and

structures need to be examined.

Ecosystem Management

Concepts

The implementation of ecosystem management

depends on many concepts, some familiar and

others unique. Among these latter concepts are

notions of risk and risk management, scale, land

classification, and biophysical templates. The

purpose of this section is to briefly review these

concepts.

Treatment of risk and uncertainty

Risk assessments help managers develop a sense

about the likelihood of outcomes of various management strategies. In these assessments, analysts

also have to make judgments about the risks associated with various indicators and findings. Contemporary ideas of risk, uncertainty, and ignorance

acknowledge the traditional distinctions [for

example those made by Knight (1921)], but generally use a practical definition of risk as either

(1) the possibility of loss or injury or (2) events or

circumstances that result in a chance of loss or

injury. This distinction is useful to help managers

develop a sense of the possible outcomes of management strategies. For example, in the ecological

integrity section scientific and management uncertainty was estimated regarding ecosystem response

to forest and rangeland management. We also

provide statements regarding uncertainty in projections or interactions.

Risk management

Ecosystem management with its emphasis on

spatial and temporal hierarchy facilitates risk

management in the sense that it focuses discussions and management responses at the level that

the risk occurs. The use of risk in this discussion

is technically not risk in the sense of just the

situation where all possible outcomes can be

specified [see Knight's (1921) definition]. Rather,

it is a more general characterization of the risks

associated with a set of outcomes, a knowledge

that not all outcomes can be characterized in

advance, [see Faber and others (1992) for a discussion of the concept of ignorance] and some notion

of the societal acceptability of those risks.

The greatest flexibility for management is attained

to the extent risks (meaning events or activities

that pertain to the likelihood of not reaching

desired goals) can be managed at the lowest level

possible. For example, a risk would be considered

a "regional risk" if it could not be adequately

addressed by making incremental, individual

decisions at lower levels; such as activities that

threaten anadromous fish populations. Insuring

the viability of a wide ranging fish species includes

providing high-quality suitable habitat for the

species well distributed throughout its range.

Making individual, separate decisions regarding

where the species habitat will be emphasized will

not insure that the habitat is well distributed.

That is, unless the decision is made regarding

which portion of all the potential habitat will be

managed to insure quality habitat for this species.

The alternative would be to conservatively manage

all habitat by not permitting any of it to be adversely altered, thus, reducing flexibility for management. By strategically making the decision of

where, specifically, the species habitat would be

emphasized, management has potentially more

options to consider as new decisions are made.

A method of partitioning the risks through a risk

management approach can retain flexibility at the

field level (figs. 6a and 6b). Figure 6a shows

different amounts of risk at four geographic ex39
Figure 6a—Example of partitioning risk to ecological

integrity across multiple geographic extents.

Figure 6b—An example of cumulative risks to ecological integrity at multiple geographic extents. Ovoids A,

B, and C represent analysis and decision levels that

address risks associated with those levels.

tents: region, sub-regional, landscape, and site.

Figure 6b shows cumulative risks for these same

geographic extents. Each site faces the cumulation

of risks from all the greater geographic extents.

The three ellipses define the analyses and potential

decisions addressing each group of risks. The

broadest extent of risks are addressed in regional

and/or sub-regional assessments (ellipse A in fig.

6b). From these, the regional guides, forest plans,

and BLM district plans can be developed and/or

revised. The next step is assessments that focus

on risks of the watersheds or landscape geographic

extent (ellipse B in fig. 6b). The most detailed

level of analysis is the site or project analysis (ellipse C in fig. 6b). Given the regional and landscape analysis as context, the remaining risks that

need to be addressed are those specific to the

particular site. When considered together, all the

risks, individual and cumulative, have been

addressed through a multi-level analysis and

decision process.

One purpose of risk management is to allow

flexibility at the local level to the extent compatible with managing risks. For example, establishing standards and guidelines at levels above the

local site results in using averages or blanket prescriptions across a wide array of conditions, so for

some sites the standards will be too high or for

other sites too low. By attempting to manage risks

at the levels that they occur, the possibilities for

this son of miss will be reduced and desired outcomes can be achieved with greater frequency.

Decisions that address all risks across a large geographic area result in fewer management options

at the site level and increases the probability that

a decision will be wrong for a particular site. This

can best be reduced by managing the risks at the

lowest level, thus allowing the greatest flexibility

at the local level.

Managing directly to achieve opportunities, desired outcomes, and the provision of goods and

services might result in new risks of failure in

achieving the goals. For example, there may be

management opportunities to increase recreation

use associated with riparian areas but that use

could increase risks to fish spawning beds in the

same riparian areas. There is nothing inherently

wrong with setting out to achieve some goals that

are oriented toward commodity output. Managing the full complement of risks associated with all

management goals then dictates that the new risks

to ecological objectives, created through achieving

the outcomes (outputs), be evaluated to determine

how these affect the cumulative risks associated

with not achieving ecological goals for the area.

It may require some additional analysis and could

result in changes in the way the practices are

applied, the provision of other goods and services,

or the total risks to the systems being analyzed.

It becomes an iterative process, analyzing risks to

40
Table 1—Attributes and characteristics typically associated with broad resolution, regional assessments.1

Attributes

Geographic extent

Data resolution2

Organizational

hierarchy

Map scale

Time period3

Short term

Long term

Landscape ecology

River basin

100 ha

Multiple

watersheds

1:100,000

1-10 years

10-300 years

Terrestrial

River basin

100 ha

Community

& species

associations

1:2,000,000

1:1,000,000

1-10 years

10-100 years

Aquatic

River basin

400,000 ha

Sub-basins

Watersheds,

communities

of species

1:100,000

1 -10 years

10-100 years

Social/Economic

States

State, County

State, County

1:1,000,000

1 -5 years

5-50 years

'The general size of these assessments is millions to billions of km2 and the general use is for national and regional planning and

policy-making.

2Defining vegetation components is typically on a resolution of 100 ha while the aquatic components are defined by river systems

( 400,000 ha).

3

Short- and long-term time periods for historical and projected patterns and processes differ between types of assessments.

resources, determining the effects on outputs

(outcomes), modifying actions that result in new

projections of output levels, determining risks to

ecological goals, adjusting as appropriate, and

cycling through the analysis until the risks to

ecological goals are acceptable and the output

levels are achieved to the extent possible.

In risk management, the final step involves determining the societal acceptability of risks.4

 It may

be that even the broad magnitudes of risk (for

example of species extinction) are not societally

acceptable. On the other hand, reducing risks to

future generations of, say, catastrophic fire might

be highly desirable. Given the cumulative nature

of these risks, there is danger that land managers

too often take societal acceptability of land management actions for granted. By attempting to

4We acknowledge that social acceptability is the result of

interactions within our pluralistic cultural, legal, and regulatory systems. It is not always clear that reaching overall

societal acceptability of ecosystem management objectives and

actions is feasible without conflict.

manage the risks, we increase the probability of

societal acceptance of our management actions.

Scales

The term "scale" can have several meanings.

These different meanings often are confusing

when referring to geographic extent, timeframe,

data resolution, and map scale. To avoid this

confusion when describing assessments, we use

two-part names designating both the geographic

extent and the resolution of the data. Tables 1, 2,

and 3 show the relations between the different

definitions where we refer to geographic extent,

with examples such as regional, sub-regional,

landscape, and site. Map scale represents a ratio of

a distance on a map to the distance on the ground,

for example 1:1,000 kilometers map scale. This

document provides information based on two

types of assessments, a broad-regional assessment

and a mid-sub-regional assessment. Different

disciplines used different notions of geographic

extent, timeframe, resolution, and map scale

(tables 1,2, and 3).

41
Table 2— Attributes and characteristics typically associated with mid-resolution, sub-regional assessments.1

Attributes

Geographic extent

Data resolution

Organizational

hierarchy

Map scale

Time period2

Short term

Long term

Landscape ecology

Multiple

watersheds

100 ha

Watershed

1:100,000

1:24,000

1-10 years

10-300 years

Terrestrial

Province

1-5 ha

Species groups

1:100,000

1:24,000

1-10 years

10-100 years

Aquatic

Multiple

watersheds

15,000 ha

watershed

Species groups

1:100,000

1:24,000

1-10 years

10-100 years

Social/Economic

County

County

County

1:100,000

1 -5 years

5-50 years

'The general size of these assessments is thousands to millions of km2 and the general use is for state, regional, and local planning

and policy-making.

2

Short- and long-term time periods for historical and projected patterns and processes differ between types of assessments.

Table 3—Attributes and characteristics typically associated with fine resolution, landscape assessments.1

Attributes

Geographic extent

Data resolution

Organizational

hierarchy

Map scale

Time period2

Short term

Long term

Landscape ecology

Watershed

25 ha

Streams and

vegetation

patterns

1:24,000

1-10 years

10-100 years

Terrestrial

Watershed

1-5 ha

Species

1:24,000

1-10 years

Aquatic

Watershed

Streams

Species

1:24,000

1 -10 years

Social/Economic

Household

Household

Household

1:100,000

Months-5 years

The general size of these assessments is tens to hundreds of km2 and the general use is for multi-forest/district, forest/district, or

area planning and policy-making.

2

Short- and long-term time periods for historical and projected patterns and processes differ between types of assessments.

42
Data resolution pertains to the amount of information incorporated in the data for a given area.

As an example, using a hand lens to examine a

rotting log yields more detail (higher resolution)

than taking pictures from an airplane. The degree

of resolution generally focuses on ecosystem patterns and processes that are best addressed at a

particular geographic extent. For example, in

regional and sub-regional scale assessments, it may

be difficult to adequately address ecosystem patterns and processes using only low resolution

information, such as habitat conditions for species

with limited distribution or small home ranges

(O'Neill and others 1986). Similarly, assessments

of economic patterns in rural communities may be

more appropriate at landscape or larger geographic

extents. In terms of map scale, resolution is the

degree that different features may be distinguished.

Assessments made on a regional geographic extent

show general trends and rates of change in resource condition, and describe broad-based existing conditions for key biophysical, economic, and

social components. Such assessments describe

social trends including trends in human population increases and urban versus rural economic

growth. These assessments usually contain low

resolution information on the spatial patterns of

resources (for example, species distributions or

mineral deposits) and associated risks to resource

values (for example, fire and insect hazard).

Mid, sub-regional assessments provide more specific

information than regional assessments. Mid-resolution data are usually used to provide information on

patterns of vegetation composition and structure for

sub-regional assessments. Similarly, the mid-resolution data describe trends in social well-being for

communities of interest stratified by counties or

groups of counties. For the Basin, mid, sub-regional

assessments provide basic information about communities of interest, counties, and communities

(places) across the Basin.

Assessments at the landscape extent or specific site

extent provide the greatest detail (tables 1, 2, and 3).

These assessments may cover landscapes, watersheds,

individual project sites, or specific human communities. These assessments typically rely on high-resolution data regarding geology, soils, vegetation, streams,

social aspects and economic systems. These assessments include information on individual communities and existing land uses, such as recreation and

mining sites.

Assessments conducted over multiple geographic

extents are important when describing ecosystems.

For example, assessments made at the landscape or

site geographic extents cannot adequately address

general patterns and processes, such as habitat conditions for wide-ranging species or global climatic

processes. In addition, regional and sub-regional

assessments provide a necessary context for landscape

assessments and more localized decisions. Together,

assessments (ranging from site specific to regional

geographic areas) provide a comprehensive setting in

which to make the best-informed management

decisions.

Conducting assessments at different geographic

extents using appropriate data with appropriate

resolution also can promote more effective stakeholder participation and learning. Many people see

their interests affected primarily at the local level.

They may choose not to participate in sub-regional

or regional assessments because of an assumption

that their local concerns will be diluted or unnoticed.

Moreover, without the sub-regional and regional

assessments, stakeholders and decision makers may

have difficulty assimilating the magnitude and

complexity of highly detailed, or localized landscape

to site specific assessments. Conversely, stakeholders

whose interests are national or regional may find it

difficult to participate effectively in multiple landscape assessments based on high-resolution data.

Undertaking assessments at multiple geographic

extents promotes the inclusion of more interests into

the assessment process. It also serves to provide

decision makers with the appropriate information for

particular levels of decision making. Depending on

the issues and policies being addressed, the type of

assessment, data resolution, and geographic extent

can overlap (tables 1, 2, and 3).

43
Figure 7—Typologies of land classifications.

Land classifications

Scientists and land managers use different terms

when they describe the land base. In this integrated assessment we did not attempt to reconcile

the terminologies but we do make clear how they

fit together. The links between different typologies of land classification are shown in figure 7.

On the left side are broad land classes as perceived

by the public. In the center are management

categories used by forest and range managers.

These categories have formal definitions. Timberland is forestland that produces or is capable of

producing crops of industrial wood, and that is

not withdrawn from timber harvest, by statute or

administrative regulation. It is capable of producing more than 20 cubic feet per year of industrial

wood. Wilderness areas are an example of forestland that may be capable of growing 20 cubic feet

per year but have been withdrawn (placed in

reserved status) by Congressional action. Forestland is land with at least 10 percent of the area

containing forest trees of any size. Forestland

includes transition zones such as Pinyon-juniper in

the Southwest portion of the Basin, and forest

44
areas adjacent to urban and developed lands.

Rangeland management categories are delimited

by the types of native vegetation (climax or natural

potential) that dominate a site. The five categories

listed are those found in the Basin. The right

column lists the four classifications of plant communities used in the landscape characterization in

the ICBEMP study. The links between terms are

shown although there are slight differences in

exact definitions. For example, the definition of

the woodland plant community relies more on a

percent canopy than on a measure of growth. In

this integrated assessment, forestland is a close

proxy for woodland.

Biophysical template

The biophysical template is described by the

interaction of disturbance and successional processes, and constrained by the spatial and temporal

dynamics of the geologic, landform, hydrologic,

soil, and climate processes. It controls the spatial

and temporal dynamics in which species have

evolved. The concern among ecologists is the lack

of use of the biophysical template as a reference

condition. Current biophysical conditions represent the accumulated effects of succession and

disturbance regimes that have been significantly

changed since the settlement of the Basin. The

result has been both losses and gains of species,

fragmentation of habitats, disturbance events that

have higher intensities than co-developing soils

and stream channels, loss of productivity, establishment of non-native species, and less favorable

conditions for some native species.

Implicit in the goals for ecosystem management is

working with the complexity of the biophysical

template to provide people with ecosystem goods,

functions, and conditions they want. Such an

approach requires an understanding of rates of

change and the evolutionary nature of the values

that determine the biophysical template.

45
CHAPTER 3

CURRENT STATUS

OF THE BASIN

This chapter describes the current status of the

Basin. First, it paints the Basin in a broad brush,

describing its physical features and some of the

historical trends influencing current conditions.

It sets the national and global context for management of FS- and BLM-administered lands in the

Basin. It describes the ownership of land in the

Basin, and illustrates the different ecological and

economic areas that the SIT used to study Basin

processes in greater detail. Finally, the chapter

distills information on the current status of the

Basin from each of the science staff areas: landscape ecology, aquatic/riparian ecology, terrestrial

ecology, economics, and social science. Maps,

figures, and tables are drawn from the individual

assessments of ecosystem components, which is

where much greater detail may be found describing conditions within the Basin. These reports

are assembled in the Component Assessment.

Overview

The total assessment area of the Basin is 144.2

million acres (58.4 million ha), 76.2 million acres

(30.9 million ha) of which are administered by

35 National Forests and 17 BLM districts (fig. 8,

and table 4). The remaining area is divided

among other Federal, state, county, and tribal

governments and private land owners. The combined land administered by the BLM and the FS

comprises about 53 percent of the total assessment

area. Data were collected from an area somewhat

larger than the assessment area to assist in landscape characterizations. Ownership differs substantially across the ERUs as shown in figure 9

(table 5). The proportion of each ERU administered by the FS or BLM is above average in the

Central Idaho Mountains, Northern Great Basin,

Lower Clark Fork, and Owyhee Uplands ERUs.

The Columbia Plateau has the highest proportion

of private owners, and the smallest percent of FSand BLM-administered lands.

Among the forested ERUs, the FS and the BLM

administer the largest proportion of area in the

Central Idaho Mountains where they manage 81

percent of the land base. The FS and BLM administer the least proportion of area in the Northern Glaciated Mountains (FS and BLM manage

39%); and private ownership is the greatest in the

Upper Klamath (50% private). Among the nonforested ERUs, the FS and BLM administer the

greatest proportion of area in the Northern Great

Basin (73% FS- and BLM-administered, 21%

private), and the least in the Columbia Plateau

(12% FS- and BLM-administered, 76% private).

Vegetation is mapped into potential vegetation

groups (PVG) that have similar environmental

conditions and are dominated by similar vegetation (for example, the dry shrub PVG). They are

often grouped by similar types of life forms. The

PVGs found in the Basin and their relative proportions are shown in table 6.

The lands in the Basin are highly diverse. They

range from the crest of the Cascades to the continental divide in the Rocky Mountains. The Basin

contains some of the most majestic mountain

47
Table 4—Ownership of lands within the Basin assessment area.

Ownership

BLM- or FS-administered lands

Other Wilderness and National Parks

Private and other lands

State and other Federal lands

Tribal lands

Basin total

acres

76,274,273

1,599,761

54,666,141

6,236,940

5,437,061

144,214,176

Lands

—hectares—

30,867,100

647,400

22,122,600

2,524,000

2,200,300

58,361,400

-percent53

1

38

4

4

100

Note: Areas generated from 1 sq. kilometer grid using Geographic Information System. Totals will not match official Government Land Office totals.

landscapes in the nation. The Bitterroot, Selkirk,

Steens, Cabinet, Salmon River, Lemhi, and Purcell

mountain ranges commonly have elevations over

5,000 feer (1,524 m). Within these ranges, the

valley bottoms can be low (725 feet/225 m) and

the topography steep (McKee 1972). In contrast,

much of the Klamath Basin is considered high

desert with valley elevations generally over 4,000

feet (1,200 m). These mountains and valleys are

underlain by metamorphosed schists and gneiss,

marine sedimentary rocks, granitic batholiths,

bedded sandstone, basalt, and belt series metasediments (Baldwin 1959, McKee 1972). Most

have been altered by mountain and continental

glaciation (McKee 1972).

In eastern Washington, northern Idaho, and

western Montana, many of these mountains and

valleys are covered with volcanic ash. During the

last 4,000 years, volcanoes of the Cascade Range

have erupted about twice per century. Effects of

blasts, lava flows, floods, or other volcanic deposits

are extensive. The ash deposits produced highly

productive soils with excellent water-holding

characteristics (Geist and Cochran 1991). In

contrast, many of the soils derived from the

batholith in central Idaho are very droughty and

highly erosive (Ross and Savage 1967). The parent materials of the Klamath Basin developed into

a variety of young soils, many with a pumice

mantle (Geist and Cochran 1991).

In addition to the mountains and valleys of the

Basin, there are vast plains, prairies, deserts, and

rolling hills. Many of these features are the result

of basalt flows. Twenty-five million to twelve

million years ago, these flows created a broad

basalt plateau that covered more than 26 million

acres (10 million ha) in eastern Washington and

Oregon and southern Idaho (McKee 1972).

From 18,000 to 14,600 years ago, a series of

floods from glacial Lake Missoula scoured much

of eastern Washington, removed topsoil, and

eroded the underlying basalt (Allen and others

1986, Dietrich 1995, McKee 1972, USDI 1982).

Silt and fine sand outwash from glaciers and

glacial outburst floods were entrained by wind and

redeposited as thick blankets of loess. Sequential

layers of loess cover much of the Columbia Valley,

Columbia Plateau, and Snake River Plain. These

areas support much of the dryland and irrigated

agriculture in the region.

The plains of southeastern Oregon, which are

encompassed by the Great Basin, are primarily

a series of depositional landscapes. Scores of lakes

developed in the Great Basin during the Pleistocene

48
Figure 

8—Major land ownerships within the Basin

49 
Figure 9—Percentage of Ecological Reporting Unit area by land ownership.

(Smith 1978). The largest of these, such as

Bonneville and Lahontan Lakes, covered much of

northwestern Utah, northwestern Nevada, and

portions of southeastern Oregon (Harper and

others 1994).

The climate in these landscapes varies, depending

on elevation and the location of the site in relation

to the rain shadows caused by the Cascades, Bitterroots, Salmon River, and other major northsouth mountain ranges (Cooper and others 1987,

Finklin 1983, Finklin and Fischer 1987, Franklin

and Dyrness 1973, Graham 1990, Pfister and

others 1977, Steele and others 1981). The landscapes of the prairies, deserts, and plateaus and

distribution of vegetation vary depending on the

soils, long-term precipitation patterns, and climate. They are often highly diverse and productive biospheres (Dietrich 1995, McKee 1972,

Schwantes 1991).

The soils and climate of the mountain landscapes

support vegetation ranging from moisture-loving

species like western hemlock, western red cedar,

and huckleberries to dryland species like sagebrush

and Idaho fescue (Cooper and others 1987,

Franklin and Dyrness 1973, Pfister and others

1977, Steele and others 1981). In the mountains

of the Basin, tree species range from mountain

hemlock and subalpine fir at the higher elevations

to ponderosa pine in the valley bottoms. Mixed

conifer forests dominated by white fir, grand fir, or

Douglas-fir occupy many of the mid-elevation

forests. Lodgepole pine forests occupy large portions of the Basin.

Huckleberries, buck brush, alder, and sagebrush are

some of the shrubs present in the forests of the Basin.

Manzanita is more common in the forests of the

Klamath Basin than in other regions (Franklin and

Dyrness 1973). In addition, juniper, bitter brush,

50
Table 5—Land ownership, by Ecological Reporting Unit for the Basin assessment area.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10

11

12

13

ERU

Northern Cascades

Southern Cascades

Upper Klamath

Northern Great Basin

Columbia Plateau

Blue Mountains

Northern Glac. Mtns

Lower Clark Fork

Upper Clark Fork

. Owyhee Uplands

. Upper Snake

. Snake Headwaters

. Central Idaho Mtns

Basin total

FS/BLM

1,399,800

768,700

737,700

3,160,300

1,053,600

2,667,900

2,734,200

1,782,000

1,238,100

5,452,500

1,427,700

1,635,400

6,809,200

30,867,100

Other

Wilderness/

National

Parks

54,100

0

31,300

0

800

0

256,400

0

0

0

21,400

283,200

200

647,400

Ownership/Administration

Private

State/

other

Federal

609,300

440,300

786,600

782,500

7,514,700

2,378,100

2,500,800

803,000

1,033,900

2,002,200

1,483,800

639,100

1,148,300

22,122,600

181,300

20,200

11,800

240,300

674,900

35,200

294,000 1

120,100

19,800

355,300

275,000

55,400

240,700

2,524,000 2

Tribal

296,800

126,200

0

7,200

282,600

600

,155,200

3,400

1,900

117,000

185,000

24,400

0

,200,300

Total

land

area

2,541,300

1,355,400

1,567,400

4,190,300

9,526,600

5,081,800

6,940,600

2,708,500

2,293,700

7,927,000

3,392,900

2,637,500

8,198,400

58,361,400

(Source: Basin GIS data, converted to 1 sq. kilometer raster data)

and associated bunch grasses occupy many of the

drier sites of the Basin. Included in these mosaics of

vegetation are rich riparian areas that support willow,

brome grass, and other similar species (Clary and

McArthur 1992). Prior to cultivation, sagebrush

and grasses dominated the prairies and plains

(Daubenmire 1970).

Many species of wildlife inhabit the mountains

and valleys of the Basin. Grizzly bears, black

bears, mountain lions, and salmon exist within the

Basin along with such highly prized game species

as Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, and whitetailed deer. The bald eagle and northern goshawk

are important raptors that prey on squirrels, chipmunks, woodpeckers, and a host of other species

(Reynolds and others 1992). The ecosystems of

the Basin also support a multitude of other vertebrate and invertebrate species.

The Columbia River and its tributaries wind their

way through this varied landscape. The source of

the river is Lake Columbia in British Columbia,

Canada. The river falls over 2,450 feet (750 m)

between its source and the Pacific Ocean—four

times the fall of the Mississippi River in half the

distance. Before the construction of the dams, the

Columbia River carried 7.5 million tons (7 million metric tons) of sediment to the sea every year

(Dietrich 1995).

51
Improvements to facilitate Columbia River navigation began in 1876 with the construction of locks

and canals. The first large-scale dam, Minidoka,

was built on the Snake River in 1909 by the Bureau of Reclamation. Dams like the Bonneville

(1938) and Grand Coulee (1941) were the beginning of a 28 major dam system on the Columbia

River and its tributaries. By 1975, the waterway

between Lewiston, Idaho, and the Pacific Ocean

had become a series of reservoirs. This dam system provides electricity throughout the Northwest, navigation and irrigation benefits, flood

control, and recreational opportunities.

Agriculture, including irrigated and dryland farming and livestock production, is common in the

valley and plateau regions. Today, some rural and

natural settings within the Basin have given way to

expanding population centers; such as Bend,

Oregon; Boise and Coeur d'Alene, Idaho;

Missoula, Montana; Pasco/Kennewick/Richland

("Tri-Cities"), Spokane, Wenatchee, and Yakima,

Washington.

Context

The Columbia River Basin is part of larger natural

and human systems. Studying the Basin by itself

provides valuable information, but its economic,

cultural, and ecologic significance goes beyond its

own borders. It influences, and is influenced by,

activities occurring within the United States,

North America, the Pacific Rim, and the world.

National and worldwide status and trends in

population, resource use, and energy consumption

are examples of factors that may affect conditions,

options, and outcomes within the Basin. New

technologies and efficiencies developed elsewhere

change resource flows, limits, and use. Examining

some of these factors provides context for this

document, and for the ICBEMP.

Land area

The Basin covers about 8 percent of the United

States land area and, at about 225,000 square

miles (58.4 million ha), is just 20 percent smaller

than Texas (all comparisons to the U.S. refer to

all 50 states, unless noted otherwise). The Basin

encompasses 24 percent of the National Forest

System lands and 10 percent of the BLM-administered lands in the nation. Approximately 20.5

percent (11.5 million acres/4.68 million ha) of the

acreage with American Indian reservations in the

United States is also located in the Basin; of that,

2.2 million acres (0.9 million ha) are tribal lands

within reservation boundaries. Designated wilderness, present in 46 of the 100 counties in the

Basin, totals 10.3 million acres. As of 1990, the

National Wilderness Preservation System (all

agencies) totaled 92.2 million acres (37.3 million

Table 6-—Summary of potential vegetation groups

within the Basin.

Potential vegetation group

Agricultural

Alpine

Cold Forest

Cool Shrub

Dry Forest

Dry Grass

Dry Shrub

Moist Forest

Riparian Shrub

Riparian Woodland

Rock

Urban

Water

Woodland

Basin total1

Assessment area

-percent16.1

0.2

9.9

7.8

17.7

4.0

22.8

17.9

0.5

1.3

0.2

0.2

0.9

0.6

100.0

Note: Data from report Ah44; 0l-May-96.

'Total not exactly equal to 100 due to rounding.

52
ha), with Alaska accounting for 57.1 million acres

(23.1 million ha) of the total (Hendee and others

1990, in Cubbage and others 1993). Thus, the

Basin includes 29 percent of wilderness acres

within the contiguous United States.

Population

The total 1990 human population in the Basin

was 2,913,927 about 1.2 percent of the nation's

population (McGinnis and Christensen, in press)

living on 8 percent of the nation's land base. The

American Indian population by tribal membership

is 64,000, which is 5.4 percent of the 1993 nationwide total. In the Basin, there are 22 federally

recognized tribes, of 554 nationwide.

In a nation that has become largely urban, the

Basin is strikingly rural. Over 77 percent of the

U.S. population lives in urban areas; in the 13

western states5 the percentage is even higher

(84.6%)(Krannich and others 1994). By contrast,

only 31 percent of the population in the Basin

lives in urban areas, none of which contains more

than 1 million people; only 6 of the 100 counties

are considered metropolitan (McGinnis and

Christensen, in press).6 Sixty counties are in the

most rural category defined by the Census Bureau

(non-metropolitan), are not adjacent to a metropolitan county, and do not contain a community

of at least 10,000 people. These 60 counties

account for less than 25 percent of the Basin

population.

Population density on non-public lands within the

Basin is less than a third of the U.S. average: on

average, 20 people dwell in 1 square mile (8/km)

within the Basin as opposed to 70 people per 1

square mile (27/km) for the nation. Including

5The West Census region includes Alaska, Arizona, California,

Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,

Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

6The Census Bureau defines a metropolitan county as one in a

metropolitan statistical area (MSA). An MSA has a population or at least 100,000 and includes a large population center

of at least 50,000 and adjacent communities that are economically and socially integrated with it. The metropolitan

counties in the Basin are: Benton, Franklin, Spokane, and

Yakima Counties (Washington), and Ada and Canyon

Counties (Idaho)(McGinnis and Christensen, in press).

Federal lands decreases population density to 11

people per 1 square mile (4/km). Sixty-two percent of the population within the Basin lives in

communities of less than 10,000 people, in unincorporated places, or in open countryside—higher

than the 43 percent average for the United States.

These average population densities mask tremendous variation across the Basin, from fewer than 1

person per 1 square mile (0.26/km2) in Clark

County, Idaho, to as high as 338 people per 1

square mile (132/km) in Ada County, Idaho.

People living in the Basin are similar to other

people in the Unites States in age structure, educational attainment, occupational distribution, and

sources of income—although variation exists across

the Basin. The Basin has a slightly higher percentage of people under the age of 18 than the U.S.

average (28.9 versus 25.6%) and a lower percentage of people in the prime wage-earning years of

25 to 49 (36.0 versus 38.0%). Forty-eight percent

of those people living in the Basin have achieved at

least some level of higher education compared

with 45 percent in the United States, suggesting it

has a high-quality workforce. The racial and

ethnic composition of the Basin is quite different

from the rest of the country. Generally, the Basin

has a higher percentage of Caucasians than the

United States (91.7 versus 80.3%); it also has a

greater proportion of Native Americans (2.4 versus

0.8%) and a smaller proportion of African-Americans (0.6 versus 12.1%), Hispanic Americans (6.7

versus 9.0%) and Asian Americans (1.1 versus

2.9%).

Recreation

There are about 4 acres (1.6 ha) of designated

wilderness, national parks, and national recreation

areas per person in the region compared with a

national figure of 0.6 acres (0.24 ha). The relative

rate of participation in outdoor recreation is

higher than in other regions of the nation. Visits

of over 200 million recreation activity days per

year were made to Federal lands in the Basin.

Currently there is a great deal of recreation activity

in the Basin, averaging 31.5 recreation visitor days

53
Photo 5- Roads provide access for a wide array of uses including cold water fishing.

(RVDs) per resident compared to a national average of 22.3 RVDs. Since 1980, RVDs of FSadministered lands in the Basin have increased

2.3 percent per year; at these growth rates recreation use will double every 31 years. Photo 5

illustrates the highest valued recreational activity

in the Basin. Detailed data on recreation activities

and use are given in the Component AssessmentEconomics (Haynes and Home 1996).

Forestry

The forests of the Basin are categorized as temperate forests. Although there is a worldwide concern

about deforestation, the temperate forests have

actually increased in area (Brooks 1993). In the

Basin, the total area in forest has remained relatively constant during the last two centuries (Component Assessment—Landscape Ecology, Hann and

others 1996). Broad indicators of sustainability

indicate that Basin forest acreage and inventory

volumes are relatively constant. The Basin currently supplies about 10 percent of the total U.S.

timber production, but this proportion has been

declining since the early 1960s (fig. 10). This has

resulted from increases in timber harvest in the

southern United States and in Canada. These

same trends are expected to continue (Haynes and

others 1995).

Table 7 shows Basin forests and human populations in a national, continental, and global

context. It illustrates that the Basin is relatively

sparsely populated and well endowed with forests.

In examining the number of forested hectares per

person, it is important to consider the totality of

values that forest ecosystems represent to people.

Forests (all ownerships) cover one-third of the

total land area in the United States, about 737

million acres (298 million ha). Powell and others

(1993) have summarized the forest resources of the

United States. Some 490 million acres (198

million ha) of that is classified as timberland, that

is, forestland capable of producing at least 20

cubic feet of industrial wood per year, and not

reserved for uses incompatible with timber pro54
Table 7—Population, population growth rate, forest area, and forest area per capita, 1990.

Area

Asia

Latin America

Africa

North America

Nordic

Europe

C.I.S.

Oceania

World

United States

Basin area

Population

—millions—

3,071.6

448.3

647.3

275.7

17.8

547.1

287.7

20.4

5,316.1

248.7

2.9

Annual

population

growth

—percent—

2.0

2.0

3.0

1.0

0.1

0.2

0.7

0.2

1.7

0.8

0.7

Forest area

-million hectares--

484.5

919.4

604.3

751.4

61.0

134.0

941.5

153.1

4,047.1

298.1

66.7

Forest

-hectares/person0.16

2.05

0.93

2.73

3.43

0.24

3.27

7.50

0.76

1.20

22.23

Note: Asia includes tropical and temperate zone countries. North America excludes Mexico. Nordic is Finland, Norway and

Sweden. Europe category excludes Nordic countries and C.I.S. countries, includes Turkey. C.I.S. is Commonwealth of Independent States. Oceania is Australia and New Zealand only.

Sources: Haynes and Brooks (in press); Haynes and Horne (1996)

Figure 10—Historic and projected softwood timber harvest in the United States and in the Basin, 1952-2040.
duction. Almost all U.S. timberland is in the

temperate zone and temperate tree species used for

commercial purposes. Hardwoods, mostly in

Washington and Oregon, occupy only 12 percent

of the West's timberland. The forest inventory

data suggest that forestland management in the

United States is generally sustainable, but there are

still unresolved issues such as biodiversity, soil

depletion and productivity, lack of certain seral

stages, and loss of what is publicly perceived as

nonrenewable forest resources (such as Douglas-fir

old-growth). About 73 percent of U.S. timberland is held in private ownership (358 million

acres/145 million ha). The remaining 27 percent

is held or administered by various public owners,

with about 17 percent in national forests, 3 percent in other Federal ownership, 6 percent in state

holdings, and 2 percent under county and municipal control. Timberland under American Indian

sovereignty accounts for about 1 percent and is

included in the category of private timberlands.

Ownership of timberland areas varies substantially

across the regions of the United States (table 8).

In the Basin, private ownership accounts for 38

percent of the timberland, and 53 percent is FSand BLM-administered. The other 10 percent is

owned by state, and other governments and agencies. The national forests contain 89 million acres

(36 million ha) of commercial forestland; the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees

management of another 6 million acres (2.4 million ha).

Range

Cattle grazing has been an important part of the

Basin's economy since just after the Civil War. In

1992, the Basin accounted for four percent of the

cattle inventories in the United States. More than

60 percent of this inventory is concentrated along

the southern edge of the Basin coincident with the

range PVGs. In general, cattle inventories in the

Basin have fallen over the past four decades reflecting both changes in consumer tastes towards highquality grain-fed beef and the development of

large feedlot operations in the Great Plains states

(Glover and Southard 1995).

The productivity of western rangelands is extremely

variable; the better desert sites in Oregon and Washington produce up to 250 pounds of forage per acre,

while grasslands may produce up to 5,000 pounds

per acre (Joyce 1989). Rangeland condition has

changed dramatically throughout the western states

since Europeans first appeared. Misuse and overuse

caused range conditions to be most degraded

around the turn of the century, but range conditions have been improving in most areas since the

1930s (Joyce 1989).

There are 2.9 million Federal AUMs7 in the Basin

(see Component Assessment—Economics). The FS

accounts for 45 percent (35% in the upper Basin and

10% in the lower Basin) while the BLM accounts for

55 percent (38% in the upper Basin and 16% in the

lower Basin). Reliance on Federal forage, defined

here as the portion of total feed consumed by livestock provided by permitted use of FS and BLM

lands, averages 7 percent for the Basin.

The degree of reliance on Federal AUMs is actually higher if the seasonal importance of Federal

forage (which is at higher elevations and used for

spring and summer grazing) is considered. For

example, in the EIS we used a factor of 1.2 to

estimate the effect of lost Federal AUMs. This was

calculated from assumptions about the seasonal

pattern herd size and extent of substitute feed

during different grazing seasons.

Seven counties in the Basin had over 30 percent

dependency on FS and BLM AUMs: Skamania,

Washington (48%); Camas, Idaho (39%);

Humboldt and Elko, Nevada (38% each); Custer

and Clark, Idaho (36 and 34%, respectively); and

Chelan, Washington (33%). Of the 100 counties

in the Basin, 67 counties had less than 10 percent

reliance on FS and BLM forage. Only five of the

counties with over ten percent reliance on Federal

grazing were large producers of cattle and calves

(over $25 million).

7An AUM is the amount of forage required to sustain one

cow, five sheep, or five goats for one month; forage includes

grazed forage, hay, crop residue, silage, or grain.

56
Threatened and endangered species

There are over 17,000 known taxa within the

Basin; there are 609 known vertebrate taxa within

the Basin as compared with 45,000 vertebrate taxa

globally (table 9). The Basin is home to 29 threatened or endangered species (table 10). Eleven

percent (11 out of 100) offish taxa found in the

assessment area are listed nationally as threatened

or endangered under the Endangered Species Act

(1973) by the Federal Government. The Columbia River Basin has relatively high diversity of fish

species compared to other parts of the West (Great

Basin, Colorado River, and others are lower), but

lower when compared to eastern and Midwest

states (such as states in the Mississippi drainage).

Overall, from an aquatic standpoint the assessment area has a lower species diversity but higher

endemism than the Mississippi drainage. The

relative proportions of the threatened and/or

endangered fish taxa are higher in the Great Basin

and Klamath Basin portions of the assessment area

than in the Columbia River Basin itself due in part

to the greater degree of endemism in those areas.8

8

Personal communication. June 18, 1996. Jack Williams,

Bureau of Land Management. On file with: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Interior,

Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla,

WA 99362.

Table 8—Areas of timberland in the United States by type of ownership and sections, 1992.

Type of ownership

National Forests

Bureau of Land

Management

Other

All Federal

State

County and municipal

All public

Forest Industry

Farm

Miscellanous private

All private

All ownerships

Total United States

Area

Thousand

—acres—

84,661

5,754

6,239

96,654

27,356

7,484

131,493

70,455

82,484

205,121

358,061

489,555

Proportion

—Percent—

17.3

1.2

1.3

19.7

5.6

1.5

26.9

14.4

16.8

41.9

73.1

100.0

North

9,545

26

1,252

10,823

13,332

6,151

30,306

16,198

31,004

80,290

127,492

157,799

Region

South Rocky Mt.

Thousand acres

11,554

0

4,456

16,010

3,602

890

20,502

39,025

39,485

100,297

178,807

199,309

36,402

3,087

253

39,742

2,546

101

42,388

2,918

8,223

9,098

20,239

62,628

Pacific Coast

27,160

2,641

278

30,079

7,876

342

38,297

12,314

3,772

15,436

31,522

69,819

Source: Powell and others 1993.

57
Table 9—Counts or estimates of total species biota of the Basin assessment area, estimated total U.S. species, and

global diversity of organisms.

Taxonomic group

Plants and allies

Fungi

Lichens

Bryophytes

Vascular plants

Algae

Plants

Total plants and allies

Invertebrates

Bacteria

Protozoa

Rotifers

Nematodes

Mollusks

Arthropods

Viruses

Roundworms

Insects

Spiders and mites

Crustaceans

Total invertebrates

Vertebrates

Fish-natives

Fish-exotics

Amphibians

Reptiles

Birds

Mammals

Total vertebrates

Total all taxa

Number of taxa

Known

3,000

736

811

8,250

12,797

380

3,400

3,780

87

54

26

27

283

132

609

17,186

in Basin

Estimated

9,000

736

860

8,350

18,946

770

23,500

24,270

87

54

26

27

283

132

609

43,825

Global

Described

70,000

40,000

250,000

4,000

40,000

70,000

5,000

15,000

950,000

75,000

40,000

45,000

number of species

Estimated

1-1.5 million

200,000-10 million

300-500,000

400,000-3 million

100-200,000

200,000

perhaps 500,000

500,000-1 million

8-100 million

750,000-1 million

150,000

50,000

Note: Basin figures are number of taxa (mostly species, with a few subspecies of particular conservation concern); Basin fungi are

macrofungi only. Global "Estimated" figures include undiscovered species.

1

 = No firm estimate available. Source: Marcot and others (1996).

58
Table 10— National and Basin federally-listed threatened and endangered plant and

animal species.

Area

United States

Plants

Animals (including fish)

[Fish only]

US total

Basin Assessment area

Plants

Animals (not including fish)

Fish

Basin total

Threatened

92

114

[40]

206

1

5

4

10

Number of taxa

Endangered

434

320

[65]

754

3

9

7

19

Threatened or

Endangered

526

434

[105]

960

4

14

11

29

Note: "Animals" category includes invertebrates as well as vertebrates.

Sources: Marcot and others (1996); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1996)

Including subspecies, the assessment area supports 88 native fish taxa, of which 28 are narrowly distributed endemics. Of the 88, 11 are

listed as threatened or endangered [out of 100

Threatened or Endangered taxa nationwide as

of 8/20/94; 50 CFR 17.11 (U.S. Government

1994b)]. Of the 88, 13 are listed by the Federal

or state governments as Threatened or Endangered; 47 of the 88 are listed as Threatened/

Endangered by the Federal or state governments, and/or as sensitive or candidate species

by the Federal or state governments.

Water supply

Eighty-seven percent of the world's fresh water

goes into agriculture (Giampietro 1994). In the

United States, India, and many other countries,

the decreasing level of water in aquifers affect food

production (Brown 1995). Irrigation is by far the

dominant off-stream use of water in the Basin,

accounting for over ten times the combined volumes of water withdrawn by public supply, industry, and thermoelectric power plants (Jackson and

Kimerling 1993). As elsewhere, competition for

water in the Basin will likely become more contentious as demands mount for agricultural, industrial, and residential uses, as for recreation, fish

and wildlife, and other in-stream uses.

Energy

World energy consumption was about 350 quadrillion (1015) British Thermal Unit (BTUs) in

1990 and is expected to increase by a third by

2010 (Switzwer 1994). United States energy

consumption was 81.5 quadrillion BTUs in 1991,

four percent of which was attributable to hydropower (Wright 1994). Hydropower production on

the Columbia and Snake Rivers represent 40

percent of the nations total hydropower production (Dietrich 1995). This source of energy will

likely remain a substantial contributor to the

region's energy demands.

59
Environmental initiatives

The FS and BLM, as part of a larger Federal Government system, are often connected to government-wide efforts to increase international

coordination in the protection and maintenance of

environmental quality. The Clinton Administration has made public commitments to manage the

forests of the United States in a sustainable manner by the year 2000. The meaning of this commitment was clarified in February 1995, with the

signing of the "Santiago Declaration" by representatives of the U.S. State Department in Santiago,

Chile (Component Assessment— Social, McCool and

others 1996). The Santiago Declaration is a nonbinding agreement among the nations in the

temperate and boreal forest zones to identify

"Criteria and Indicators" for "the sustainable

management of all types of forests," and it offers

seven major criteria and 67 indicators to measure

progress toward this goal.

Other types of non-binding, bilateral (two-nation)

and multilateral (more than two nations) agreements have been signed to promote coordination

among nations on specific issues. These agreements include protocols on the inspections for

pests for international shipments of wood products, cross-boundary fire suppression (with Mexico

and Canada), and management objectives for

migratory species, such as Neotropical migratory

birds. These agreements have been effective as

long as there is voluntary compliance, and their

major purpose has been to build a greater mutual

understanding among nations on the various

interests and problems in an increasingly interdependent world (Component Assessment—Social).

Finally, the ICBEMP does not cover the Canadian

portion of the Columbia River Basin, but it does

parallel Canada's Okanagan Desert ecosystem

conservation project and other efforts.

Current Status of the Basin

This section provides highlights of the Component

Assessment as it relates to the current status of the

Basin. More in-depth discussions and detail are

provided in the specific chapters of the Component

Assessment report.

Landscape ecology9

The Landscape Ecology staff summarized the

major biophysical patterns and hydrologic processes for each Ecological Reporting Area within

the Basin. Each of the ERU summaries contains

interpretations of subsection, lithology, potential

vegetation, historical and current vegetation, basic

climatic and morphometric descriptions; generalized soil characteristics and evaluation of productivity; stream type groups, valley bottom settings,

and wetland complexes. Each summary describes

upland erosion processes and sediment sources,

vulnerability of stream channels to disturbances,

channel recovery potential, and sensitivity of

subwatersheds to disturbances. Summaries also

include descriptions of terrestrial disturbances

such as fire, succession, and grazing. The information delineates and describes terrestrial and aquatic

ecosystems that behave in a similar manner given

their potential ecosystem composition, structure,

and function; delineates areas with similar production potentials for management; provides a basis

for interpreting hazards and limits to management; outlines the natural disturbance processes

that create finer-scale ecosystem patterns; and sets

context for predictive models of ecosystem patterns and processes.

Throughout most forested ERUs, native

herblands, shrublands, and old multi-layered

and single-layered forests have declined substantially in area and connectivity since the

Basin was first settled by European-Americans.

In the last 100 years, exotic plant species have

expanded throughout native forests and range9The material in this section is drawn from the material in the

Component Assessment—Landscape Dynamics chapter and

from the Component Assessment— Biophysical Environments

chapter (Hann and others 1996; Jensen and others 1996).

60
lands, but most especially in areas that were

once dry native herblands and shrublands

(fig. 11). Over that same timeframe, area

and connectivity of early-seral forests declined

especially where historical fire regimes were

predominantly mixed severity or lethal as in the

Northern Glaciated Mountains. Intermediateaged forest increased dramatically in area and

connectivity as did the volume of timber in

small-diameter classes. Affected by fire exclusion, selective harvesting, and grazing, forests

expanded in areas of historical woodland and

shrubland, and forest canopies became more

complex and layered. Additionally, forests

became more densely stocked, developed increasing dominance of shade-tolerant species,

and became more susceptible to severe fire,

insect, and pathogen disturbances.

Forest composition and structures have largely

become more homogeneous. At the same time

that late-seral structures have been declining,

early-seral structures have also been declining

(fig. 11). These structures have been replaced

to a substantial degree with mid-seral structures, resulting in homogeneous forest structures. Although early-seral forests of shadeintolerant species have been fragmented, lateseral shade-tolerant forests have grown more

contiguous. Consequently, many forest landscapes are now more homogeneous.

Fire severity has generally increased (lethal fires

have increased by approximately 17%), and fire

frequency has generally decreased (very frequent

and frequent fire intervals have declined by

approximately 32%) over the last 200 years

(figs. 12 and 13, and table 11). The primary

causative factors behind fire regime changes are

effective fire prevention and suppression strategies, selection and regeneration cutting, domestic livestock grazing, and the introduction of

exotic plants. Fire suppression costs, firefighter

fatalities per year, and the proportion of high

intensity fires have doubled between the periods

of 1910 to 1970 and 1970 to 1995.

61

Figure 11—Comparison of historic and current selected landscape elements.

CONTINUED
Table 11—Fire regime severity/frequency classes within the Basin Assessment area.

Comparing fire severity between historic and

current times for forested potential vegetation

groups on FS- and BLM-administered lands show

an increase in lethal fire from 20 to 50 percent of

the area and a reduction in non-lethal fires from

40 to 15 percent (fig. 14). Subregional differences

exists; although eastern Oregon and Washington

as well as Idaho and western Montana show decreases in non-lethal fire, and increases in lethal

fire, the drop in non-lethal fires in Oregon and

Washington is greater than in Idaho and Montana.

The increase in lethal fires has been greater in

Idaho and Montana than in Oregon and Washington.

Altered fire regimes have been largely responsible

for more homogeneous forests and rangeland

landscapes. Large wilderness or unroaded areas

prevail in ERUs such as the Central Idaho Mountains, Northern Glaciated Mountains, Northern

Cascades, and Owyhee Uplands. Even in wilderness and unroaded areas, where fire exclusion

alone has been the primary management influence, fire, insect, and pathogen disturbance regimes have been significantly altered. Despite

these disturbance regime changes, wilderness and

unroaded areas are among those least altered by

management. Predicted road densities vary greatly

across the Basin (fig. 15). Examples of road densities within subwatersheds are shown in figure 16.

Roads are correlated with many changes in vegetation, land use, and hazards, yet a consistent inventory of roads across all ownerships within the

Basin does not exist. Roads are important from

both an ecological and socioeconomic perspective.

Frequency Severity Class

Lethal very frequent

Lethal frequent

Lethal infrequent

Lethal very infrequent

Lethal extremely infrequent

Mixed very frequent

Mixed frequent

Mixed infrequent

Mixed very frequent

Nonlethal very frequent

Nonlethal frequent

Nonlethal infrequent

Rarely

No Data

Total

Historic

0.0

21.5

20.4

3.2

2.2

0.6

6.2

9.3

1.3

24.3

6.9

2.7

1.3

0.1

100.0

Current

percent —

14.2

6.0

34.5

8.1

1.5

0.0

3.8

16.8

0.0

1.4

2.3

10.0

1.5

0.1

100.0

Change

14.2

-15.6

14.1

4.9

-0.8

-0.6

-2.5

7.5

-1.3

-22.9

-4.6

7.3

0.2

0.0

62

This file was created by scanning the printed publication. 

Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; 

however, some errors may remain. 
Figure 12—Changs in Basin fire regimes from historic to current by severity class.

63 
Figure 13—Changesin Basin fire regimesfrom historic to currem byfrequency class.

64
Figure 14—Fire Severity for FS- and BLM-administered Forested Potential Vegetation Groups.

6 5
Figure 15—Predicted road density classes.

6 6
Figure 16—An example of road density categories for subwatersheds within the Basin.

6 7
Aquatic/riparian10

Seven key salmonids were selected for detailed

analysis. These are bull trout, westslope cutthroat

trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, and redband

trout; steelhead; and ocean-type and stream-type

chinook salmon. Less area within the basin is

currently occupied by three or more key salmonids

(fig. 17) than existed historically (fig. 18). Figure

19 shows the distribution of subwatersheds with

by one or more key salmonid species stonghold.

Key salmonid strongholds are subbasins that

support strong populations based on the consideration of life history forms, trends in population

numbers and relative abundance of individuals.

Strong populations (fig. 20) are associated with

higher-elevation forested lands, and the proportion declines with increasing road densities (fig.

21). The largest areas of contiguous watersheds

supporting strong populations of key salmonids

are associated with the Central Idaho Mountains,

the Snake Headwaters, and the Northern Cascades

ERUs. Important but more restricted areas are

found in the Blue Mountains, Upper Clark Fork,

and the Northern Glaciated Mountains ERUs.

Strongholds varied between 32 percent of the

occupied range for Yellowstone cutthroat trout

and less than 1 percent for stream-type chinook/

salmon (table 12).

Many of the aquatic strongholds occur in areas of

low road density (the definitions of road density

categories are in figure 16). The higher the road

density, the lower the proportion of subwatersheds

that support strong populations of key salmonids

(fig. 21). There is an apparent difference in the

response of aquatic systems between FS-administered lands and all other lands at very low road

densities. Strongholds within the "all lands"

category decline more quickly as road density

increases. Strongholds on FS-administered lands

remain stable or slightly increase. At higher road

densities FS-administered lands provide a greater

proportion of strongholds. For the Basin,

56 percent of the unroaded area is in key

10Details on historical trends and current status of the Basin's

aquatic/riparian ecosystem are in the Component Assessment—

Aquatic chapter (Lee and others 1996).

salmonid strongholds but the proportion varies

from a high of 76 percent in the Snake headwaters

to none in the Upper Klamath (table 13).

Designated wilderness and potentially unroaded

areas are important anchors for strongholds

throughout the Basin. More than 19 million

acres (8 million ha) (27%) of FS- and BLMadministered lands in the Basin contain strongholds (40% FS and 4% BLM). These stronghold

subwatersheds contain large areas of unroaded

land (about 11.6 million acres/4.7 million ha),

averaging 58 percent of the area of an individual

subwatershed.

The use of intensive forest management to re-establish more natural landscape patterns and disturbance

regimes has variable risks and benefits across the

landscape. However, the consequences of large fires

are dependent on habitat conditions and the inherent resiliency of local populations. Damage to

aquatic ecosystems from fire may be most severe

when they have been seriously degraded and fragmented. Intensive management of watersheds that

support healthy populations may pose greater risk

for disruption of watershed processes and degradation of habitats than does fire.

Rehabilitation of depressed populations of anadromous salmonids cannot rely on habitat improvement alone but requires a concerted effort to

address causes of mortality in all life stages. These

include freshwater spawning and rearing, juvenile

migration, ocean survival, and adult migration.

Thus, to realize the benefits of improved migration and ocean survival, there must be maintenance of good-quality freshwater habitats and

healthy populations as well as increases in the

distribution of high-quality spawning and early

rearing habitats. Federal land management plays

a key role in spawning and rearing habitats.

Analysis of the extensive stream inventory data

reveals that major decreases in pool habitat, both

frequency of pools and deep pools, have occurred

over the last 40 to 60 years. These are attributable

to losses in riparian vegetation, road and highway

construction, timber harvest, grazing, farming,

68
Figure 17—Current number of key salmonid species present within the Basin.

69

CONTINUED
Figure 18—Historic number of key salmonid species present within the Basin

70

This file was created by scanning the printed publication. 

Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; 

however, some errors may remain. 
Figure 19—Number of key salmonid species within strongholds.

7 1
Figure 20—The location of aquatic strongholds in relation to areas of very low road densities.

7 2
and other disturbances. The losses appear to be

greatest in low-gradient, biologically-productive

areas. In-stream wood and fine sediment were also

found to be influenced by management activities.

The composition, distribution, and status of fish

within the Basin are different than they were

historically. The overall changes are extensive, and

in many cases irreversible. Even with no further

habitat loss, the apparent fragmentation and

isolation may place remaining populations of key

salmonid species at risk. Much of the native

ecosystem has been altered, but core areas remain

for rebuilding and maintaining functioning native

aquatic systems. The system of dams in the Basin

has altered water flows in the larger water systems

resulting in changes in water temperatures, timing

and level of peak flows, barriers to fish migration,

Figure 21—Proportion of subwatersheds supporting

strong populations of key salmonids by road density

class and land ownership.

Table 12—Historical and occupied range and habitat status for key salmonids within the Basin Assessment area.1

Species

Bulltrout

Wests lope

cutthroat

Yellowstone

cutthroat

Redband

Steelhead

Stream-type

chinook

Ocean-type

chinook

Historical

range

occupied

45

85

66

69

46

28

30

Occupied

range

classed

as strong

13

25

35

22

1

<1

15

Strongholds

in

wilderness

percent

55

44

19

8

9

50

0

Strongholds

on

FS/BLM

95

94

70

56

70

88

20

Depressed

on

FS/BLM

82

65

46

58

61

77

25

Sensitive

to

FS/BLM

uses

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

minor

influence

'For detailed explanation see Lee and others (1996).

73
Table 13—Percent of predicted unroaded (<0.1 km/km2

) area in subwatersheds (-8,000 ha in

size) with key salmonid species strongholds.

reductions in riparian areas, and changes in other

physical attributes. Consequently, the aquatic

ecosystem no longer supports the same species

of fish, macroinvertebrates, and aquatic plants.

A variety of species such as kokanee salmon,

chinook salmon, lake trout, brown trout, Atlantic

salmon, coho salmon, black bass and other

centrachids, and ictalurids were introduced in

these systems to diversify angling opportunities,

create trophy fisheries, and to provide forage for

potential trophy species. Many ephemeral lakes

in the Great Basin have been stocked with crappie,

bass, bullheads, and other centrarchids and

ictalurids. Cultured strains of rainbow trout have

been widely used to sustain put-and-take fisheries

in lakes and rivers where angler harvest or habitat

degradation were too excessive to rely on natural

reproduction. These introductions have provided

increased fishing opportunities and socioeconomic

benefits.

Terrestrial7

Over 43,000 species of macroorganisms are estimated to occur in the assessment area and 17,186

species are known to occur (table 9). Microorganisms, critical to ecosystem health and function,

probably tally at least several hundred thousand

species. This biodiversity results from the wide

variety of habitats, topographic conditions, and

prehistoric events in the Basin. The terrestrial

ecology staff evaluated 14,028 species of

7Detailed information on historical trends and current status

of terrestrial ecosystems is in the Component Assessment—

Terrestrial chapter (Marcot and others 1996.

74

Ecological reporting unit

Northern Cascades

Southern Cascades

Upper Klamath

Northern Great Basin

Columbia Plateau

Blue Mountains

Northern Glac. Mtns

Lower Clark Fork

Upper Clark Fork

Owyhee Uplands

Upper Snake

Snake Headwaters

Central Idaho Mtns

Basin Average

Unroaded area in strongholds

percent

45

13

0

21

30

45

54

33

49

42

2

76

72

56
macroorganisms and explicitly included 1,339

individual species and 143 species groups in a

database on species-environment relations. There

were 296 species (excluding fish) of particular

interest to American Indian tribes identified.8 In

terms of current status, the assessment produced:

lists of habitats and associated species with greatest

declines in area or distribution since historic times,

and species-environment relations (SER) databases

listing species by habitats and ecological functions,

for use in determining potential effects of ecosystem management activities and crafting the activities to emphasize or restore specific habitats or

functions. It also contains or cites 538 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps of species distribution and maps of biodiversity hot

spots; and descriptions of key ecological roles of

fungi, lichens, bryophytes, and invertebrates for

maintaining ecosystem health and long-term

productivity and sustainable use of resources.

Overall, there is a limited scientific understanding

of the current status of most individual species and

their specific ecology within the Basin. Numerous

species may play key ecological functions in maintaining ecosystem diversity, productivity, and

sustainability. At present, there are many species

of plants (including fungi and lichens) and animals (including invertebrates and vertebrates)

that might be in jeopardy of population declines

or local extirpation because of changes in their

native habitats and environments. Federally

designated threatened, endangered, and candidate

species of all taxonomic groups occur in the Basin.

Some 264 taxa (species, subspecies, or fish stocks)

have federal listing status. Among non-fish taxa,

these include 184 category 2 candidate, 31 category

1 candidate, 11 endangered, and 6 threatened taxa,

"Personal communication. 1996. Ralph Perkins, U.S. Forest

Service, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

and 1 Federally proposed as endangered taxon.

The FS and BLM list 538 species (excluding fish)

as sensitive; some of the threatened and endangered

species and many of the additional species of potential conservation concern are dependent on environmental or habitat components that were not

evaluated at the broad scale. Table 10 indicates

threatened and endangered species tallies; it does not

project species viability or extinctions. By comparison, there are an estimated 43,684 species in the

Basin: 18,946 plants and allies; 24,270 invertebrates;

and 468 vertebrates (tally includes only macroorganisms; bacteria, protozoa, rotifers, nematodes,

microfungi and fish are excluded) {Component Assessment— Terrestrial).

We mapped the locations of relatively high levels

of both plant and animal biodiversity or species

rarity and endemism (fig. 22). These centers of

biodiversity were locations that either had unusually high numbers of species rarity and endemism,

or were locations with unusually high numbers of

species of all abundance classes. Locations with

three or more centers of concentration of the two

types mentioned defined smaller "hot spots" for

plants and animals combined (fig. 23). We identified 12 hot spots of species rarity and endemism

and seven hot spots of high biodiversity. Additional hot spots are likely to occur in Southern

Idaho and could also be identified at finer levels of

geographic resolution than were used in the Component Assessment. Hot spots included areas in

southwestern Oregon, the Snake River, the Columbia River Gorge, and in the desert steppes of

central and southern Washington. Natural areas

on Federal lands total approximately 29 million

acres (11.72 million ha) in 26 land allocation

categories.

To determine how well natural areas might support vertebrates in the Basin, we compared the

distribution of sizes of existing natural areas to the

home range sizes of vertebrate species. Existing

natural areas might be suitable for supporting

small populations of at least 70 percent of vertebrate species. No estimates were made concerning

75
T

he Component Assessment—Terrestrial chapter reports on analyses conducted

through October 1999. Since that time, USD! Fish and Wildlife Service has

published a change in their species status program, (Federal Register, February

28, 1996) essentially replacing the three candidate species categories with a

single category of candidates for listing with a one-year review period of this

program change (U.S. Government 1996). In this change, most of the species

that were classified as Category 2 or 3, and 303 taxa that were Category 1

candidates, are no longer included in the list of candidate species. A number of

plant and animal species addressed in this assessment were denoted as Candidate Category 1 or 2 when the data were gathered. Of those 131 Category 1 or

2 plants, four became Candidates in the Federal Register notice: Castilteja christii,

Erigeron basalticus, Sidalcea oregana var. Calva, and Thelypodium howellii spp.

Spectailis. Of those 34 Category 2 animals (none had been designated Category

1 in the assessment area), only mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) and spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) were still designed as Candidates. All other plants

and animals we dropped from the list of Candidates. The assessment retains the

listings for two reasons: (1) their analyses and data collection preceded the ruling change; and, (2) their charge was to address species' ecologies and conservation status, and the C2 status in particular still helps to denote species of

potential conservation concern deserving attention.

suitability of natural areas to support other types

of animal, plant, and other life.

We also identified a number of taxa worthy of

additional attention. These include 394 fungal

species; 40 functional groups of lichen species; at

least 400 apparently rare bryophyte species; 280

vascular plant species and 82 rare plant communities; 144 rare and endemic invertebrates (gastropods and insects); and additionally, various

vertebrates and microbiotic crusts. Among the

vertebrates are the aquatic-dwelling amphibians,

reptiles susceptible to ground-disturbing management activities, and birds and mammals associated

with habitats that are now scarce, declining, or

increasingly fragmented including native grasslands, sagebrush, and old low- and mid-elevation

forests.

Economics13

Overall, the economies of the four states making

up the bulk of the Basin (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington) are doing well. In 1990

''Detailed information on historic trends and current economic status of the Basin is in the Component AssessmentEconomics chapter.

their economies comprised

3.6 percent of the U.S.

economy with the economy

of Washington being larger

than the sum of the other

three (U.S. Department of

Commerce 1993). Of the

four states, Washington is

the only one with higher per

capita income than the U.S.

average, but in all four

states, per capita income is

growing faster than the U.S.

rate (table 14). Similarly,

earnings per job is increasing

in Montana, Oregon, and

Washington faster than in

the United States; only

Idaho has a smaller percentage change. Except in Montana the poverty rate is lower

than the U.S. average. Unemployment rates in

Idaho and Montana are lower than the U.S. average and decreasing at a faster rate. In Oregon and

Washington the reverse is true: unemployment

rates are higher than the national average and

falling at a slower rate.

In the Basin, the six metropolitan counties (see fig.

24) have been the center of economic growth,

with higher rates of growth in total employment,

total personal income, non-farm labor income,

and a greater ability to weather national recessions

than other counties. They tend to have lower per

capita incomes than their counterparts throughout

the United States; this gap has been widening

since 1980. Some economists believe this indicates

that amenities are attracting surplus labor, as has

been found elsewhere (Power 1996,Treyz 1993);

alternatively, these smaller metropolitan areas may

lack the highest paying jobs. Earnings per job in

metropolitan areas of Idaho (primarily Boise) are

increasing at a faster rate than the national average.

Poverty rates in Washington's metropolitan counties are increasing at a faster rate than the national

rate, though the levels are still lower than the

national average.

76
Table 14— Current economic indicators for the United States, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington; totals, metr

metropolitan counties, current and percent change since previous year or decade.

Category

Total:

Per capita income1

Earnings per job

Poverty rate2

Unemployment rate3

Metro Counties:

Per capita income

Earnings per job

Poverty rate

Unemployment rate

Non-Metro Counties:

Per capita income

Earnings per job

Poverty rate

Unemployment rate

United

Data

$20,105

$26,531

13.8%

6.8%

$21,247

$27,944

12.1%

6.7%

$15,682

$20,085

17.1%

7.4%

States

Percent

change

4.9

5.6

11.3

-8.1

4.7

5.7

6.1

-6.9

6.2

5.5

8.2

-7.5

Idaho

Data

$17,512

$23,216

13.3%

5.6%

$20,114

$25,379

10.7%

4.3%

$16,377

$22,087

14.3%

6.2%

Percent

change

5.0

5.4

5.1

-9.7

5.3

6.1

5.1

-10.4

4.7

4.9

5.1

-10.1

Montana

Data

$17,376

$20,700

16.1%

5.0%

$19,154

$22,561

12.7%

4.3%

$16,817

$20,058

17.1%

5.3%

Percent

change

6.2

7.5

30.8

-18.0

4.7

5.8

30.8

-18.9

6.8

8.3

30.8

-15.9

Oregon

Data

$18,605

$23,916

12.4%

7.2%

$19,619

$25,113

11.3%

6.5%

$16,236

$20,690

15.0%

8.9%

Percent

change

5.0

5.7

16.6

-2.7

5.0

5.7

16.6

-4.4

5.1

5.7

16.6

-1.1

Source: USDA Economic Research Service, August 1, 1995 AUTO FAX State Fact Sheets.

'Income and earnings figures are 1992 with change 1991-92, for U.S., Oregon, Washington; Idaho and Montana are 1993 figures w

2 Poverty rates for all are 1990 data, with change 1980-90.

3 Unemployment figures are 1993, with change 1992-93, for U.S., Oregon, Washington; Idaho and Montana are 1994 figures, with 

77
Figure 22—Location of centers of endemism and rarity and of centers of biodiversity (for plants and animals).

7 8
Figure 23—Location of hotspots for rarity/endemism and biodiversity.

79

CONTINUED
Figure 24—Recreation opportunities and metropolitan areas account for higher rates of population growth by county.

8 0 This file was created by scanning the printed publication. 

Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; 

however, some errors may remain. 
Table 15—Employment in economic sectors of United States, the Basin, and Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) regio

indicate values above the national average.

Industry Nation

Agriculture services 1.1

Mining

Construction

Manufacturing

SIC 242

Transportation

Trade

FIRE3

Services

Government (all)

State & local

Federal

Farm employment

0.7

5.2

14.1

0.6

4.8

21.5

7.5

28.4

14.6

10.4

4.1

2.2

Basin

average

2.6*

0.5

4.7

11.7

2.5*

4.3

21.1

6.0

25.0

16.4*

12.2*

4.2*

7.8*

Tri-Cities Spokane

4.4*

0.2

4.2

11.3

1.0*

3.3

21.1

4.6

23.2

14.6

11.9

2.7

13.0*

1.1

0.6

4.6

11.2

2.8*

4.3

22.1*

6.7

26.8

18.8*

14.0

4.7*

3.9*

! Missoula

1.9*

0.6

5.4*

11.5

5.0*

5.7*

21.4

6.2

27.4

15.0*

10.5

4.5*

4.9*

Idaho

Falls

percent

2.7*

0.8*

5.4*

9.6

0.5

3.7

21.9*

5.5

27.2

15.8*

11.8

4.0

7.3*

Twin Falls

4.7*

0.3

5.4*

11.7

0.5

4.7

21.1

5.6

21.4

11.0

9.0

2.0

14.2*

Boise

2.5*

0.4

5.1

12.6

2.3*

4.9*

20.4

7.7*

24.2

16.3*

10.3

6.0*

6.0*

Pendle

2.6*

0.0

3.5

15.0*

2.7*

4.5

19.0

4.5

20.9

17.8*

13.4

4.4*

12.2*

Note: Farm employment is calculated as the difference between total employment and covered employment. Because it is calculated 

rounding errors.

'Redmond-Bend is the portion of the Portland-Salem BEA region that is in the Basin.

2Timber and wood products,

financial, insurance, and real estate industries.

81
The non-metropolitan counties in the Basin

have even better economic indicators than

metropolitan counties. Per capita income is

higher than the national average in all four

states, although, except for Montana, growth

rate is lower than the national average. Earnings per job in non-metropolitan counties are

higher than the national average in the three

Basin states, excluding Montana.

The Basin's economy is small relative to the

United States, accounting for only one percent

of U.S. employment in 1995. The economic

strengths of the Basin were characterized by identifying those economic activities within it that have

a higher percentage of employment than the

benchmark economy of the United States. Data

for the percentage of employment in various economic sectors and areas (see table 15) suggest that

the traditional notion that manufacturing is the

driving sector of the Northwest economy, is too

narrow (for example see Beuter 1995). The economic strengths of the Basin include agriculture

and agricultural services. Mining and manufacturing, are less important to economies in the Basin

than for the nation. Basin-wide, including both

public and private lands, timber and wood products account for 2.5 percent of the jobs, cattle

grazing accounts for 1.0 percent of the jobs, and

mining accounts for 0.5 percent of the jobs. The

percentage of jobs attributable to recreation is not

shown here because the Bureau of Economic

Analysis (BEA) does not define it as an industry.

In the discussion of recreation below, we calculate

that 14.6 percent of jobs in the Basin are attributable to recreation.

A more complex story emerges by looking at

individual economic areas (called BEA regions;

fig. 25) within the Basin. Agriculture is an

economic strength in every region except the

Butte BEA region. Mining in the Butte BEA

region is double that of the national average,

and it is important in the Idaho Falls BEA

region as well. Manufacturing is a strong activity only in the Pendleton and Redmond-Bend

BEA regions, and forest products and food

processing are important components of both.

The importance of trade in each BEA region

(except the Pendleton region) mirrors the

United States. The same can be said about

the service sector except there is more variability around the Basin. In the Boise BEA region,

finance, insurance, and real estate are important

activities. In several BEA regions construction

and transportation are strong parts of the

economy. The percentage of jobs supported

by recreation is highest in the Idaho Falls

(30%), Missoula (31%) and Redmond-Bend

(25%) BEA regions.

The past two decades have seen rapid population

growth, and the evolution of what was a mature,

resource-based, economy into a diverse economy

oriented toward technology-based, transportation,

and service sectors, with manufacturing, agriculture, and government sectors expected to decline

over the next 50 years. Changes in current FS and

BLM activities have little effect on the economy

of the Basin. FS and BLM activities may have

greater affect in specific communities, however.

This study found there are 29 out of 539 censusrecognized places that may be sensitive to levels

of public timber harvest14 (fig. 26).

People hold both existence values and use values

for ecosystem goods, functions, and conditions.

Of the value provided society by the FS- and

BLM-administered lands in the Basin now and

by 2045, the existence of unroaded areas provides

47 and 41 percent; recreation provides 41 and 53

percent; timber provides 11 and 5 percent; and

range provides less than 1 percent at both times.

Market basket values per acre of FS- and BLMadministrated lands in the Basin are shown by

ERU in figure 27. This market basket is only

a subset of the measurable values of FS- and

BLM-administered ecosystem goods, functions,

and conditions: existence value of unroaded areas,

recreation, timber, and range. This is the subset of

ecosystem values (goods, function, and conditions)

uThe Component Assessment— Economic chapter defined

isolated timber- dependent communities as those communities located more than 50 miles from another incorporated

area with more than 10,000 people, and not located in either

recreation or metropolitan counties.

82
Figure 25—Economic subregions as defined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

8 3
that could be measured from information generated by the SIT; it is not comprehensive nor does

it represent the total value of BLM and FS-administered lands in the Basin. It is an improvement

on measuring only timber and range flows. Table

16 disaggregates the value of recreation for 12

recreational activities.

Mining has long been an important activity in

specific areas of FS- and BLM-administered land

in the Basin. The Economics chapter of the Component Assessment has details on the three major

components of the Basin mining industry: metallic minerals, phosphates, and aggregates (sand,

gravel, and crushed stone) each of which has

distinct economic characteristics. For metallic

minerals and phosphate, activity is minor in spatial scale but significant in national and international commodity markets. Aggregate mining is

more widely distributed throughout the Basin and

lower in value; aggregates are primarily traded in

local markets and used to construct buildings and

infrastructure associated with human populations

(photo 6). Although mining is important to jobs

and income in a few communities in the Basin,

when compared with a large, diverse, and growing

economy, it represents a minor share of gross state

product. Future minerals activity forecasts are in

figure 28; the distribution depends on the locations of the deposits—quite specific for metals,

minerals, and phosphate, but scattered for aggregates. Across the Basin, there are 180 mining and

mineral processing sites in operation, 11 under

development, and ten maintained on standby

status; the value of production from these sites in

1992 was approximately $2.7 billion. Future

activity will depend on a number of factors, most

of them not directly affected by BLM or FS

policy: the minerals present and their grade, global

prices, extraction and remediation technology, and

access.

Counties differ in their reliance on timber and

forage from FS- and BLM-administered lands. In

some counties, FS- and BLM-administered lands

provide a high proportion of the timber harvested

Photo 6—Production of aggregates is a common mining activity on FS- BLM-adminis- tered lands.

84
Figure 26—The location of isolated timber-dependent communities within each BEA area.

85
from all ownerships; in others, medium or low

proportion (fig. 29). Similarly, forage from FSand BLM-administered lands is a high, medium,

or low proportion of the total feed in each county

(fig. 30). Those areas most reliant on Federal

grazing are in the southern portion of the assessment area. These latter areas are dominated by

rangeland vegetation types and large blocks of

Federal ownership.

Social15

Most of the social issues of interest relate to the

rapid change occurring within the Basin. Changing economies are testing the ability of communities (both in the sense of "place" and in the sense

of "communities of interest") to adapt to external

changes. Increasing human populations focused

primarily in metropolitan and high amenity areas

are raising questions about the extent to which

15 Details are in the Component Assessment-Social chapter.

86

environmentally-based amenities are important in

attracting population and business. Like people

everywhere, the people of the Basin desire a higher

quality of life.

The Bureau of Census recognizes 476 communities within the project area, including 29 cities

larger than 10,000 in population and 49 CensusDesignated Places, locations that are unincorporated but have an identity to the local population.

Of the other 398 small rural communities, 68

percent are communities in the smallest size class

of 1,500 or less. These range from 22 to 1,500 in

size, with an average population of 520. In general, more-resilient communities tended to be

larger, have an economy based on a mix of industries, be more autonomous, rated by residents as

having a local government responsive to the public, and to have plans for dealing with change.

Figure 27—Per acre market basket value of selected goods and services from FS- and BLM-administered lands.
Table 16—Net economic value (willingness to

Activity

Fishing

Hunting

Day use

Winter sports

Camping

Trail use

Motor viewing

Viewing wildlife

Motor boating

Non motor

Off road vehicle

Snow Mobile

Total by ERU

ERU1

1.22

3.22

4.20

5.43

5.87

9.28

5.09

0.60

0.04

0.05

0.34

0.16

35.49

ERU 2

23.57

6.96

12.80

14.88

6.33

5.40

5.44

12.24

0.19

1.21

0.14

0.15

89.28

ERU 3

2.05

1.44

1.58

0.31

2.80

0.72

0.36

0.39

0.23

0.06

0.02

0.04

10.00

pay) of current

ERU 4

2.26

1.48

0.80

0.50

0.86

0.34

0.39

0.34

0.11

0.05

0.06

0.02

7.19

ERU 5

recreation activities on '

ERU 6 ERU 7 ERU 8

FS-BLM

ERU 9

Dollars per acre (in 1994 dollars) -

6.58

1.47

0.68

0.24

0.48

0.48

0.19

0.32

0.02

0.07

0.02

0.01

10.56

6.02

5.59

3.02

3.29

2.53

1.85

0.68

1.07

0.06

0.04

0.07

0.06

24.29

3.34

4.44

2.35

1.35

1.52

1.24

1.01

0.46

0.12

0.21

0.07

0.05

16.18

7.57

15.56

6.89

2.24

3.44

2.84

2.33

0.82

0.41

0.27

0.33

0.16

42.87

5.16

14.29

3.50

2.31

1.83

2.03

1.14

0.98

0.17

0.25

0.18

0.25

32.09

lands,

ERU 10

2.50

2.86

0.29

1.10

0.49

0.32

0.17

0.13

0.38

0.03

0.05

0.01

8.32

by ecological rep

ERU 11

2.88

2.82

0.71

2.11

0.64

0.58

0.29

0.64

0.10

0.04

0.11

0.02

10.95

I ERU 12

3.71

4.03

3.13

5.68

1.41

2.62

0.92

0.68

0.32

0.77

0.11

0.20

23.58

87

CONTINUED
Figure 28—Mine and deposit status are shown for the Basin. Adapted from Bookstrom and others (1996), figures 2-6.

88 This file was created by scanning the printed publication. 

Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; 

however, some errors may remain. 
Figure 29—Reliance on timber harvested from FS- and BLM-administered lands.

8 9
Figure 30—Reliance on forage from FS- and BLM-administered lands.

90
Human attachments to places are important in

determining the acceptability of management

actions. This is particularly true of American

Indian tribes. The traditional American Indian

economy is broad-based, including fishing,

fowling, hunting, and gathering of terrestrial

and aquatic resources over very large geographic

areas encompassing a diverse range of important

places. Uses of and values toward the land are

both utilitarian and symbolic, merged in an

inseparable manner. Through a long series of

treaties, laws, and court cases, American Indians

have special status, and the Federal Government

relates to tribes on a government-to-government basis. Access to Federally-administered

land is important to uphold rights to resource

use that are reserved under treaties. The Federal Government's Trust responsibilities based

on treaties and their subsequent interpretation

is long-reaching yet has not been articulated

satisfactorily in terms that all involved understand and to which all agree.

Project surveys found that the public (both

national and within the Basin) is increasingly

concerned with seeking a balance between

species protection and costs to society, a concern that is especially strong among Basin residents. People support the goal of healthy forests

and rangelands, but some are skeptical about

the effectiveness and sincerity of ecosystem

management. Others oppose the notion of

ecosystem management because of concerns

over possible effects on private lands, the costs

of restoration efforts, and economic effects on

people, communities, and broader economies.

On the topic of appropriate avenues and levels

of public participation, another survey queried

the public about preferences for participation in

planning, regarding FS- and BLM-administered

lands. Some 32 to 39 percent supported the

public acting as a full and equal partner; 30 to

32 percent favored serving on advisory boards.

Providing suggestions and making the decisions

were chosen by roughly equal numbers (about

10-18%), and letting resource professionals

decide was chosen by just one to three percent.

The public is also concerned about the efficiency of public participation.

People value how the land appears to them.

The Basin was characterized using five landscape themes16

 that match the Forest Service's

Scenery Management System (fig. 31). These

five themes are:

Forest and Shrub Grasslands-lands where

human intervention is minimum and natural

processes dominate visually,

Forest-lands with a vegetative cover of forest

species but where human intervention does not

dominate the natural landscape;

Shrub/Grassland-lands with a vegetative cover

of shrub, forb and/or grass species but where

human intervention does not dominate the

natural landscape;

Agricultural Lands-croplands and intensely

managed timberlands where geometric patterns dominate the landscape;

Urban-lands where commercial and residential

development visually dominate the landscape.

Themes were identified for all lands within the

Basin. The Basin is divided among these five

themes as 7, 37, 30, 20, and 6 percent respectively. These themes are an indication of how

people perceive the Basin's environments in a

very general sense. The results suggest that

three-fourths of the Basin is perceived as appearing natural.

"Galliano, Steven J.; Loeffler, Gary M. 1995. Place Assessment: how people define ecosystems, a background report of

the scientific assessment for the Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla

Walla, WA 99362. 41 p.

91
Figure 31—Landscape themes assigned to regions within the Basin.

92
Figure 32—Current scenic integrity predicted across the Basin.

9 3
Scenic integrity or visual intactness was determined for the Basin. This measure combined

vegetative structure, landform categories, and

road density models to provide a broad depiction of existing scenic integrity for BLM- and

FS-administered lands within the Basin (fig.

32). The five classes of Existing Scenic Integrity

for those lands are:

very high-settings where the landscape is

visually intact with only minute deviations;

high-settings where the landscape appears

intact and human activities are not evident;

moderate-settings where the landscape appears slightly fragmented;

low-settings where the landscape appears

fragmented, human activities dominate the

landscape; and

very low-settings where the landscape is

heavily fragmented and human activities

strongly dominate the landscape.

FS- and BLM-administered lands are divided

among these five classes as 42, 33, 17, 7, and less

than 1 percent respectively. In addition, less than

1 percent of the area was not classified. FS- and

BLM-administered lands contain much larger

proportions in the highest 2 scenic integrity categories than in the two lowest categories (45 versus

12%).

94
CHAPTER 4

ECOSYSTEM INTEGRITY:

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY

AND SOCIOECONOMIC

RESILIENCY

The land ethic recently described by the Chief

of the Forest Service articulates the priorities

and commitments toward an ecosystem-based

management approach (Thomas 1994). This

land ethic links together the concepts of sustainable interactions between humans and

ecosystems to maintain health, diversity, and

productivity. The management context and

priorities are: 1) protect ecosystems, 2) restore

deteriorated ecosystems, 3) provide multiple

benefits for people within the capabilities of

ecosystems, and 4) ensure organizational effectiveness. The SIT assumed the broad goal for

ecosystem management of trying to maintain

ecosystem integrity. We interpreted this as a

focus on the component goals of ecological

integrity and socioeconomic resiliency. From

the scientific perspective, the ICBEMP has

attempted to bring together an understanding

of the capabilities of ecosystems within the

Basin, to determine the current status of the

ecosystems, and to describe the ecological risks

and opportunities associated with attempts to

achieve assumed goals.

We recognize that there are no direct measures of

ecological integrity or socioeconomic resiliency

and that this process is not strictly a scientific

endeavor (Wickium and Davies 1995). Our

assessment of ecosystem integrity draws from the

assumed intent of the FS and BLM to achieve

particular ecological and socioeconomic goals in

the Basin. These two agencies have stated their

intentions to file two EISs in order to achieve

broad purposes and needs [see U.S. Government

1994c, (Feb. 28, 1994, 59 FR 4680; revised:

May 23, 1994, 59 FR 26624; Dec. 7, 1994, 59

FR 63071)]. These broad purposes are to enhance

or maintain ecological integrity while simultaneously providing a sustainable flow of desired

goods and services consistent with the capability of

the ecosystems.

To provide information useful to FS and BLM

managers which was to be considered in the development of new management direction, the SIT

addressed three broad questions:

1. Where within the Basin is ecological integrity

and socioeconomic resiliency high, medium,

or low?

2. Where are there opportunities to improve

(restore) ecological integrity?

3. Where are there opportunities to produce

desired goods, functions, and conditions with a

low risk to ecological integrity?

Both Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 address these

questions. Discussions related to questions 2 and

3 are mostly contained in Chapter 5.

The integrity of ecosystems encompasses both

social and biophysical components. In this context, ecological integrity refers to the presence and

functioning of ecological components and processes. The social and economic counterpart to

ecological integrity is resiliency, which in the

context of ecosystem management reflects the

9 5
abilities of people to maintain well-being through

personal and community transitions. To address

the three previously listed questions, we developed

two composite ratings (ecological integrity and

socioeconomic resiliency) which were derived

from more specific ratings for individual processes

or functions. Application of these ratings to

detailed planning at subregional or landscape

levels may be inappropriate.

We began by carefully examining all the information brought together through the ICBEMP

process to determine which elements might prove

most useful in explaining differences in ecological

processes and functions across Basin ecosystems.

Use of these elements to classify subbasins resulted

in six forest and six rangeland clusters of subbasins

with common characteristics and descriptions of

current ecological conditions. The variables found

most useful to explain and characterize the clusters

were used to develop relative integrity estimates

across the 164 subbasins. We assume that high

levels of ecological integrity indicate that evolutionary and ecological processes are being maintained; functions and processes dependent on

multiple ecological domains and evolutionary

timeframes are being maintained; and viable

populations of native and desired non-native

species are being maintained. These processes

and functions are evaluated in a relative sense

within the Basin, so that those areas exhibiting

the most elements of a system were rated as high,

and those with the fewest elements were rated low.

The basic components of ecological integrity

include the forest, range, and aquatic systems with

a hydrologic system that overlays the landscape as

a whole. These actual ratings are shown in appendix B (table B-l).

We rated social and economic resiliency for the

100 counties based on a county typology (specifically, a cluster of counties based on selected attributes). Social and economic resiliency deals

with the adaptability of human systems. High

ratings imply that these systems are highly adaptable. That is, changes in one aspect are quickly

offset by self-correcting changes in other sectors or

aspects. We assume that high levels of socioeconomic resiliency include communities and economies that are adaptable to change, that "sense of

place" is recognized in management actions, and

that the mix of goods, functions, and services that

society wants from ecosystems is maintained. The

actual ratings are shown in appendix B (table B-2).

We present these integrity and resiliency ratings as

initial estimates based on available information.

We acknowledge that these estimates are based on

broad proxies for various processes. Some of the

proxies for ecological measures, for example,

reflect structure rather than the underlying process. These proxies represent the best approximations at this broad extent for the underlying

processes that we have at this time. We do not

presume to have measured nor revealed the absolute levels of integrity or resiliency within the

Basin. Rather, these ratings represent the first

attempt at estimating integrity and resiliency at

this spatial level. Given more time and information, integrity indices might include direct consideration for elements such as recovery cycles,

synergistic interactions between environmental

components and biophysical linkages, and feedback mechanisms operating on different spatial

and temporal scales within the area.

Ecological Integrity Ratings

Based on the data sets and analysis conducted

through the project, each subbasin (4th Hydrologic Unit Code level, see appendix B, fig. B-l)

was rated as having high, medium, or low ecological integrity for forestlands, rangelands, forestland

hydrology, rangeland hydrology, and aquatic

systems. These ratings were based on relative

differences between subbasins. The ratings were

described for the 164 subbasins [each approximately 800,000 to 1,000,000 acres/325,000 to

400,000 ha and included all ownerships within

the Basin (for more detail see Sedell and others

1996)]. The actual ratings combined analysis

based on descriptive data layers, empirical process

models, trend analysis, and expert judgment. The

basic data sets on which the ratings were based are

aggregations of data from broad scale map themes,

96
subwatershed (approximately 8,500 to 25,000

acres/3,500 to 10,000 ha) information, or model

projections. We examined all the data sets, model

outputs, and map themes brought forward

through the ICBEMP or otherwise available for

use as possible measures for estimating ecological

integrity. We did not have consistent measures of

elements that might be considered direct measures

of integrity across all ownerships within the Basin.

Proxies were selected from the data available to

represent a broad array of functions, processes,

conditions, and outcomes.

Forestland and Rangeland Integrity

A forest and range (terrestrial environment) system

that exhibits high integrity is defined here as a

mosaic of plant and animal communities consisting of well connected, high-quality habitats that

support a diverse assemblage of native and desired

non-native species, the full expression of potential

life histories and taxonomic lineages, and the

taxonomic and genetic diversity necessary for

long-term persistence and adaptation in a variable

environment. This interpretation is consistent

with, and driven by, the goal of sustainable biotic

diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes. Areas exhibiting the most elements of a

system with high integrity were rated as high and

those with the fewest elements were rated low; the

medium rating fell in between.

Forestland integrity ratings were estimated for

each subbasin if the forested vegetation component was at least 20 percent of the area. Likewise,

relative rangeland integrity ratings were estimated

if the rangeland potential vegetation types within a

subbasin comprised at least 20 percent of the area

of the subbasin. This resulted in 112 subbasins

with a forest integrity rating and 86 subbasins

with rangeland integrity ratings. Thirty-nine

subbasins were classified as both forest and rangeland. There were five subbasins that were predominantly agricultural and were not rated as

forest or rangeland.

Forestland integrity

Measures of forestland integrity include such elements as: (1) consistency of tree stocking levels with

long-term disturbances typical for the forest vegetation present; (2) the amount and distribution of

exotic species; (3) the amount of snags and down

woody material present; (4) disruptions to the hydrologic regimes; (5) the absence or presence of wildfire

and its effect on the composition and patterns of

forest types; and, (6) changes in fire severity and

frequency from historical (early 1800s) to the

present. Specific proxies for forestland integrity

include: (1) proportion of area in dry and moist

forest potential vegetation groups; (2) proportion of

area having estimated road densities of moderate or

greater (> 0.7 miles/sq. mile); (3) proportion of the

area in wilderness or essentially unroaded (< 0.1

miles/sq. mile); (4) proportion of the area where fire

severity increased between historical (early 1800s)

and current periods by at least one class (that is,

nonlethal to mixed severity, mixed to lethal, or nonlethal to lethal); and, (5) proportion of area where

fire frequency declined between historical and current periods by at least one class (fire frequency

classes were 0-25 year return interval, 26-75 year

interval, 76-150 year interval, and greater than 150

year interval). Seventeen percent of the forested

subbasins have high integrity (fig. 33).

Rangeland integrity

Measures of rangeland integrity include such elements as: (1) grazing influences on vegetation patterns and composition; (2) disruptions to the

hydrologic regimes; (3) expansion of exotic species;

(4) changes in fire severity and frequency, (5) increases in bare soils; and (6) expansion of woodlands

into herblands and shrublands. Specific proxies for

rangeland integrity include: a) proportion of area in

dry grassland and shrubland potential vegetation

groups; b) proportion of area having estimated road

densities of moderate or greater (> 0.7 miles/sq.

mile); c) proportion of the area in potential agricultural vegetation groups; and, d) the proportion of the

area comprised of western juniper and big sage

vegetation types. Six percent of the rangeland

subbasins have high integrity (fig. 34).

97

CONTINUED
Figure 33—Forest integrity was rated for those 112 subbasins that had 20 percent of their area in forest PVGs.

9 8 This file was created by scanning the printed publication. 

Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; 

however, some errors may remain. 
Figure 34—Range integrity was rated for those 86 subbasins that had 20 percent of their area in range PVGs.

99
Hydrologic Integrity

Landscapes jointly encompass the terrestrial and

aquatic environments so that hydrologic networks

operate within basins on the landscape. A hydrologic system that exhibits high integrity is defined

here as a network of streams, along with their

unique ground water ecosystems, within the

broader landscape where the upland, floodplain,

and riparian areas have resilient vegetation; where

the capture, storage, and release of water limits the

effects of sedimentation and erosion; and where

infiltration, percolation, and nutrient cycling

provide for diverse and productive aquatic and

terrestrial environments. This definition is consistent with, and driven by, the goal to maintain

ecological processes. Subbasins exhibiting the

greatest level of these characteristics were rated

high, those exhibiting the least were rated low;

subbasins that were between high and low were

rated as medium.

A lack of fine resolution stream characteristic data for

the Basin necessitated a generalized probabilistic

approach for use in determining subbasin hydrologic

integrity in this analysis. Information concerning the

resiliency of watersheds to disturbance and estimates

of past management disturbance to watersheds were

both used in determining the current hydrologic

integrity of subbasins. Rangeland and forestland

subwatersheds were assessed independently in this

analysis to facilitate characterization of these environments separately at the subbasin level.

Measures of hydrologic integrity include such

elements as: (1) disturbance to water flow; (2) bare

soil and disturbances to soil structure; (3) riparian

vegetation; (4) sensitivity of stream banks and hill

slopes to disturbance; (5) cycling of nutrients,

energy, and chemicals; (6) surface and sub-surface

flows; (7) stream-specific measurements such as

gradient, stream bed substrate, full bank width,

and depth; and, (8) recovery potential following

disturbance. Specific proxies for forest and rangeland hydrologic integrity include: (1) hydrologic

effect variables (for example, surface mining,

dams, cropland conversion, and roads); and

(2) sensitivity of stream banks and stream channel

function to disturbance. Ratings include potential

for sediment to reach streams following road construction; potential for sediment to reach streams

following fire or vegetation removal; potential to

adversely affect stream hydrologic function

through increased sediment or stream flow; inherent stream bank sensitivity; rating of riparian

vegetation importance to stream function; and

potential for a watershed to recover hydrologic

functions following disturbance. Forestland and

rangeland hydrologic integrity are shown in figures

35 and 36. Twenty-four percent of the forestland subbasins have high forestland hydrologic

integrity (fig. 35). Twenty-one percent of the

rangeland subbasins have high rangeland hydrologic integrity (fig. 36).

Riparian disturbance was estimated based on

information concerning the sensitivity of stream

banks to grazing and the sensitivity of stream

channel function to the maintenance of riparian

vegetation {Component Assessment—Biophysical).

In this approach the resiliency of grazed riparian

areas was used to infer probable riparian area

disturbance since most riparian areas of the Basin

have experienced historically high grazing pressure.

Areas with low relative grazing resiliency were

considered to have high riparian disturbance while

areas with relatively high grazing resiliency were

considered to have lower riparian disturbance.

The hydrologic and riparian disturbance ratings

reflect relative differences in management effect

across subbasins within the Basin. These ratings

do not, however, indicate the total resiliency of

such watersheds to disturbance (that is, their

ability to recover following disturbances). To

better understand the potential hydrologic integrity of these subbasins, a variety of resiliency ratings were developed for each subwatershed and

subbasin {Component Assessment—Biophysical).

These ratings are used in conjunction with the

hydrologic disturbance ratings in the assessment of

overall hydrologic integrity. For example, areas

with high hydrologic disturbance, and high stream

100
Figure 35—Hydrologic integrity was rated for the 112 subbasins that had forest PVGs.

1 0 1
Figure 36—Hydrologic integrity was rated for the 86 subbasins that had range PVGs.

102
and riparian vegetation sensitivities are considered

to have the lowest probable hydrologic integrity

across the Basin. Areas with high hydrologic

disturbance and low stream and riparian vegetation sensitivity, however, would likely possess

higher hydrologic integrity because they are better

able to absorb such disturbances without loss of

hydrologic function. For these reasons, hydrologic

resiliency ratings are appropriately used to interpret the effects of past management activities on

hydrologic integrity.

The hydrologic integrity values assume that areas

with high disturbance and low recovery potential

(that is, they are not resilient) are more likely to

have higher probabilities of containing altered

hydrologic functions than other areas. Consequently, they are described as possessing low integrity in this report. Conversely, areas with low

relative disturbance by mining, dams, roads,

cropland conversion, grazing and high recovery

potentials are considered to have the highest probable hydrologic or riparian integrity. The integrity

values presented in this report reflect probabilities

of finding altered hydrologic functions within

subbasins based on relative differences between

subbasins. Information presented in this section is

appropriate to the description of relative differences across the Basin at the subbasin level.

Aquatic Integrity

An aquatic system that exhibits high integrity

has a mosaic of well-connected, high-quality

water and habitats that support a diverse assemblage of native and desired non-native species,

the full expression of potential life histories and

dispersal mechanisms, and the genetic diversity

necessary for long-term persistence and adaptation in a variable environment. This definition

is consistent with, and driven by, the goal to

sustain biotic diversity and maintain ecological

processes. Subbasins exhibiting the greatest

level of these characteristics were rated high,

those exhibiting the least were rated low, with

medium ratings in between.

We have characterized subbasins along a gradient

of conditions relative to a full complement of

native fish and other aquatic species, well distributed in high-quality, well-connected habitats (fig.

37). Subbasins that support the full expression of

life histories and a strong mosaic of productive and

well-connected populations should be relatively

self-contained and resilient to the natural disturbances anticipated over time periods approaching

100 years.

High aquatic integrity—These subbasins most

closely resemble natural, fully functional aquatic

ecosystems. In general they support large, often

contiguous blocks of high-quality habitat and

watersheds with strong populations of multiple

species. Connectivity among watersheds and

through the mainstream river corridor is generally

unimpeded, and all life histories, including migratory forms, are present and important. Native

species predominate, though introduced species

may be present. These subbasins provide a system

of large, well-dispersed habitats that are resilient to

large-scale catastrophic disturbances.

Medium aquatic integrity—These subbasins

support important aquatic resources, often with

watersheds classified as strongholds for one or

more species scattered throughout. The integrity

of the fish assemblage is moderate or high. The

most important difference between high integrity

and medium integrity is increased fragmentation

that has resulted from habitat disruption or loss.

These subbasins have numerous watersheds where

native species have been lost or are at risk. Connectivity among watersheds exists through the

mainstem river system, or has the potential for

restoration of life-history patterns and dispersal

among watersheds. Re-establishing the necessary

mosaic of habitats will often require conservation

of existing high-quality sites as well as the restoration of whole watersheds that continue to support

remnant populations.

Low aquatic integrity—These subbasins may

support populations of key salmonids or have

other important aquatic values (that is, threatened

and endangered species, narrow endemics, and

103
Figure 37—Aquatic integrity was rated for the 164 subbasins.

1 0 4
introduced or hatchery supported sport fisheries).

In general, however, these watersheds are strongly

fragmented by extensive habitat loss or disruption

throughout the component watersheds, and most

notably through disruption of the mainstem

corridor. Although important and unique aquatic

resources exist, they usually are localized.

Terrestrial Community Types

We aggregated 165 cover type and structural stage

combinations into 24 terrestrial community types

(Component Assessment—Landscape). Terrestrial

communities have changed from historic to current time periods. Late-seral forested communities, herbland, and shrubland have declined (table

17). Terrestrial community types were simulated

across the Basin for a 400-year period using preEuropean conditions as the initial point. These

broad-scale estimates provided a range of conditions that may have existed in presettlement times.

Departures from this range of conditions were

developed to estimate the magnitude of broad

habitat changes in forestlands and rangelands

within subbasins. Estimating broad habitat departures from estimated historical ranges of conditions enabled us to infer potential effects on

current and future species habitat. Habitat departure estimates can be useful in setting priorities for

terrestrial ecosystem restoration activities, and

understanding important trade-offs and risks

associated with vegetation management. Examples of species associated with terrestrial community types are provided in table 18. If

substantial shifts in a specific terrestrial community are projected, reference to this table provides

insight into some species that may be affected.

We further collapsed the forest terrestrial community types having late-seral/single-layered, and lateseral/multi-layered structures into a "late" class.

We then estimated departure17 from historical

ranges of conditions by subbasin for nine resulting

Forestland terrestrial community types (table 19)

17Terrestrial community type departures were determined by

comparing the current areal extent of each type to 75 percent

of the historical ranges (simulated) of each type.

and three rangeland terrestrial community types

(table 20). We estimated departures for those

terrestrial community types that account for at

least 1 percent of the subbasin area for any output

period of the historical simulation run, or for the

current condition.

Forest and Rangeland Cluster

Descriptions

Each of the 164 subbasins in the Basin is unique.

The challenge is to identify meaningful similarities among subbasins, while preserving these

unique characteristics. We organized subbasins

within clusters based on common ecological

themes that highlight the similarities of subbasins

grouped within clusters, while acknowledging

substantive differences among the subbasins.

These clusters reflect recurring patterns that

emerged from the analyses. Clusters represent a

simplified synthesis of common management

history, resultant conditions, management needs,

opportunities, and potential conflicts across large

and complex landscapes.

Two sets of clusters emerged: six forestland and six

rangeland groupings or clusters (figs. 38 and 39).

The primary characteristics for the clusters are

shown in tables 21 and 22. These clusters or

groupings are a representation of the current

ecological conditions for the Basin. As change

occurs, the groupings would be expected to also

change. The clusters can be useful to land managers as they make decisions about priorities, emphases, and where management activities might occur

across the landscape in order to achieve specific

goals and attain desired future conditions.

A brief description of each cluster in terms of its

current characteristics and conditions is presented

in the following paragraphs. Table 23 provides a

quick highlight of the primary characteristics of

each cluster, the primary risks to current ecological

integrity, and primary opportunities to address

ecological integrity. When a decline in occurrence

of a terrestrial community is noted for a particular

105
Table 17—Changes of broadscale terrestrial communities between historical and current periods within the Basin

assessment area.

Terrestrial community1

Agricultural

Alpine

Early-seral Montane Forest

Early-seral Lower Montane Forest

Early-seral Subalpine Forest

Exotics

Late-seral Montane Multi-layer

Forest

Late-seral Montane Single-layer

Forest

Late-seral Lower Montane Multi-layer

Forest

Late-seral Lower Montane Singlelayer Forest

Late-seral Subalpine Multi-layer

Forest

Late-seral Subalpine Single-layer

Forest

Mid-seral Montane Forest

Mid-seral Lower Montane Forest

Mid-seral Subalpine Forest

Rock/Barren

Upland Herbland

Upland Shrubland

Upland Woodland

Urban

Water

Historical

area

Current

area

Class

change2

Basin

change3

percentage0.0

0.2

8.7

1.1

1.2

0.0

3.8

0.8

2.2

5.6

1.2

0.6

10.5

4.9

2.7

0.2

14.9

36.7

1.9

0.0

0.9

16.1

0.2

7.9

0.3

1.8

2.1

3.4

0.9

1.4

1.1

0.5

0.8

16.6

7.5

2.7

0.2

4.9

25.5

2.9

0.2

0.9

N.A.4

-0.2

-8.4

-76.85

48.25

N.A.4

-11.2

8.4

-34.65

-80.65

-63.85

36.35

58.65

53.05

-1.0

0.0

-66.85

-30.55

49.55

N.A.4

0.0

16.15

0.0

-0.7

-0.9

0.6

2.15

-0.4

0.1

-0.8

-4.55

-0.8

0.2

6.15

2.65

0.0

0.0

-9.95

-11.25

0.9

0.2

0.0

Note: numbers have been rounded.

'The terrestrial community types riparian herbland, riparian shrubland and riparian woodland comprised less

than 1.0 percent historically and are not shown in the table.

2Class change = percent change historical to current for the terrestrial community.

3Basin change = percent change historical to current as a proportion of the Basin.

4Not applicable since the terrestrial community did not exist during the historical period.

'Ecologically significant changes.

106
Table 18—Examples of species associated with specific community types.

Table 19—Percent of subbasins within each Forest Cluster having a net departure [reduction (-) or increase (+)] in

terrestrial community type from 75 percent range of the historic 400 year simulation run.

Terrestrial community type

Lower Montane Early-seral

Mid-seral

Late-seral

Middle and Upper Montane Early-seral

Mid-seral

Late-seral

SubAlpine Early-seral

Mid-seral

Late-seral

1 2

Forest

3

Cluster

4 5 6

percent

-36

+18

-54

+18

+9

-64

+36

+9

-73

-73

+42

-95

-6

+21

-27

+58

-26

-42

-85

+54

-85

-62

+62

-23

+39

-16

-38

-82

-18

-96

-65

+78

-87

-4

+8

-91

-91

+37

-33

-54

+13

+42

+4

-29

+4

-77

+27

-82

-41

+32

-55

+18

-5

-41

Source: Hann and others (1996).

107

Terrestrial community type

Lower Montane:

Forest generalist

Late-seral

Mid/Upper Montane:

Forest generalist

Late-seral

Subalpine:

Forest generalist

Late-seral

Herblands:

Shrublands:

Mixed conifer woodlands:

Juniper woodlands:

Examples of associated species

Least chipmunk, dusky-footed wood rat, Nashville warbler

Olive-sided flycatcher, white-headed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch

California myotis, creeping vole, blue grouse

American marten, northern spotted owl, northern saw-whet owl

Wolverine

Boreal owl, heather vole, chestnut-backed chickadee

Idaho ground squirrel, savannah sparrow, bobolink, Say's phoebe, greater

sandhill crane

Mojave black-collared lizard, pygmy rabbit, black-throated sparrow, loggerhead

shrike

Uinta ground squirrel, fringed myotis, mountain quail

plain titmouse, pinyon jay

CONTINUED
Table 20—Percent of subbasins with range clusters having a net departure, reduction (-) and increase (+), in 400

year simulation run.

Source: Hann and others (1996).

cluster, reference to table 18 provides examples of

the species that are likely to be affected by a decline. More details on the terrestrial communities

and hydrologic parameters are in the Component

Assessment—Biophysical and Landscape Dynamics

chapters.

Forest Cluster 1

High integrity cold- and moist-forest—These

subbasins contain the greatest proportion of high

forest, aquatic, and hydrologic integrity of all

clusters. Subbasins in this cluster are dominated

by wilderness and roadless areas and contain cold

and moist/cold forests that are the least altered by

management. Subbasins in this cluster are predominantly high elevation subbasins where forest

structure and composition have been simplified by

fire exclusion, and there has been little alteration

from timber harvest. Late-seral structure has

declined in all three (montane, lower montane,

and subalpine) elevation settings. Early-seral and

mid-seral structure has increased. Mean changes

in fire severity and frequency are the lowest for this

cluster. Where important changes have occurred,

mixed-severity fire regimes have tended toward

lethal regimes and fire frequency has generally

declined as a result of effective fire suppression.

Relatively limited road access in cold and moist

forests of this cluster suggests that forest habitats

provide a relatively high degree of security for a

variety of species vulnerable to human exploitation

and/or disturbance (such as, the Rocky Mountain

gray wolf, grizzly bear, wolverine, lynx, moose, and

elk). Hydrologic integrity of these subbasins is the

highest of any forestland in the Basin. Connectivity among subwatersheds supporting native fish

strongholds is good and strongholds for multiple

species often exist in subwatersheds throughout

these subbasins. Fish populations and communities associated with these subbasins are likely the

most resilient in the Basin, are able to withstand

large-scale disturbance events, and will likely

persist without any human intervention.

Forest Cluster 2

Moderate and high-integrity forest—Subbasins in

this cluster represent a mix of moderate to high

forest, hydrologic, and aquatic integrity. In general

the forestland contains semi-wild and moderatelyroaded areas. Landscape vegetation patterns and

disturbances are more highly altered in lower- and

mid-montane settings, which coincide with higher

road densities. Late- and early-seral structure has

declined in most elevation settings with compensating increases in mid-seral, resulting in more homogeneous forest structure. Subbasins in this cluster

provide relatively secure habitats for vertebrates

vulnerable to human disturbance. The tendency in

dry forests has been to move from non-lethal, to

mixed and lethal fire severities with declining fire

frequencies. The tendency in moist forest groups has

been to move from mixed to lethal fire severity with

108

Ranae Cluster

Terrestrial community type

Herblands

Shrublands

Mixed Conifer Woodlands

1

-100

-67

+100

------------------------------percent---------------------------

2

-15

-46

-23

3

-68

-46

-32

4

-100

-71

+29

5

-62

-4

0

6

-84

-39

-24

This file was created by scanning the printed publication.

Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; 

however, some errors may remain.
Table 21—Summary of Characteristics of Forest Clusters.

Variable

Ownership

BLM/FS

Other

Potential Vegetation Groups

Dry Forest

Moist Forest

Cold Forest

Dry Grass/Shrub

Cool Shrub

Other

Forested Vegetation Groups

(% of forested area in each)

Dry Forest

Moist Forest

Cold Forest

Road Density Classes

Low or none

Moderate or higher

Cropland/pasture

<12" annual precipitation

Fire frequency change

Fire severity increase

High wildland/urban fire interface risk

Moderate wildland/urban fire interface risk

Change in juniper woodland

Forest Integrity

Low

Moderate

High

Range Integrity

Low

Moderate

High

Aquatic Integrity

Low

Moderate

High

Hydro logic Integrity

Low

Moderate

High

Composite Ecological Integrity

Low

Moderate

High

1 2

Forest

3

Cluster

4 5 6

percent of area

80

20

13

23

47

7

3

8

16

27

57

85

15

0

1

37

36

0

29

0

0

0

100

0

61

40

5

38

58

0

4

96

0

0

100

86

14

26

25

30

11

3

5

37

27

36

62

38

3

4

60

50

17

61

0

10

43

47

29

48

23

0

59

41

4

30

66

0

3

97

40

60

22

33

15

6

1

24

55

52

13

32

68

20

2

66

57

6

36

0

67

33

0

100

0

0

8

85

7

47

49

4

4

96

0

58

42

14

67

7

3

1

8

18

73

9

20

80

2

3

51

47

1

13

0

86

10

4

57

43

0

54

46

0

12

54

34

83

17

0

50

50

43

6

4

24

8

15

81

11

8

22

78

11

14

60

35

29

30

0

79

21

0

100

0

0

52

44

4

39

41

20

96

4

0

35

65

23

16

9

15

11

26

51

21

28

36

64

21

14

60

36

10

23

0

59

17

24

66

35

0

87

13

0

76

17

7

100

0

0

Source: ICBEMP GIS data (converted to 1 km2 raster data).

109
Table 22— Summary of characteristics of Range Clusters.

Variable

Ownership

BLM/FS

Other

Potential Vegetation Groups

Dry Forest

Moist Forest

Cold Forest

Dry Grass/Shrub

Cool Shrub

Other

Rangeland Vegetation Groups

Dry Rangeland

Cool Rangeland

Other

Road Density Classes

Low or none

Moderate or higher

Cropland/pasture

<12" annual precipitation

Fire frequency change

Fire severity increase

High wildland/urban fire risk interface

Moderate wildland/urban fire risk interface

Change in juniper woodland

Forest Integrity

Low

Moderate

High

Range Integrity

Low

Moderate

High

Aquatic Integrity

Low

Moderate

High

Hydrologic Integrity

Low

Moderate

High

Composite Ecological Integrity

Low

Moderate

High

1 2

Range

3

Cluster

4 5 6

percent of area

36

64

29

5

1

32

22

11

49

34

17

20

80

9

23

37

18

32

10

+ 12

100

0

0

100

0

0

39

61

0

34

66

0

100

0

0

81

19

21

33

34

4

1

7

34

8

58

71

29

3

1

51

47

7

59

0

6

37

57

6

37

57

4

24

72

6

16

78

0

3

97

44

56

34

28

14

4

2

18

17

8

75

30

70

14

2

67

49

12

33

0

76

15

9

76

15

9

43

50

7

49

35

16

58

32

10

5

95

8

4

30

26

3

59

30

3

67

62

38

56

51

17

13

0

4

0

79

21

0

100

0

0

84

16

0

100

0

0

97

3

0

75

25

10

5

11

45

20

9

61

27

12

64

36

5

33

24

16

6

58

0

12

27

61

26

50

24

37

57

6

7

35

58

8

63

29

55

45

12

2

4

50

9

23

61

11

28

30

70

17

38

17

9

8

39

0

37

43

20

79

21

0

79

18

3

44

34

22

80

20

0

Source: ICBEMP GIS data (converted to 1 km2 raster data).

110
Figure 38—Subbasins grouped into six Forest Clusters.

111
Figure 39—Subbasins grouped into six Range Clusters.

112
Table 23—Forest and Rangeland Clusters - primary characteristics, risks to ecological integrity, and opportunities to

address risks to integrity.

Forest or

Range

Clusters

Forest 1

Forest 2

Forest 3

Forest 4

Forest 5

FoTQSt 6

Primary characteristics

1. Moist and Cold Forest types

2. Minimally roaded

3. High aquatic, forest,

hydrologic, and composite

integrity

1. Minimally roaded

2. Mix of high and moderate

forest, hydrologic, and aquatic

integrity

3. High composite integrity

4. Mix of cold, moist, and dry

forest types (nearly equal)

1. Moderately roaded

2. Moderate aquatic and

composite integrity

3. Low and moderate forest

and hydrologic integrity

4. Dry and moist forest types

1. Moist forest types

2. Highly roaded

3. Low forest, aquatic, and

composite integrity

4. Moderate to high hydrologic integrity

1. Dry forest types

2. Low to moderate aquatic

integrity and low forest

integrity and low composite

integrity

3. Sensitive watersheds to

disturbance

4. Highly roaded

1. Dry forest types

2. Low hydrologic, forest,

aquatic, and composite

integrity

3. Moderately roaded

Primary risks to

ecological integrity

1. Severe fire potential in

lower elevations

2. Higher elevations sensitive

to soil disturbances

(i.e., roading)

1. Cold forest types sensitive

to soil disturbance

(i.e., roading)

2. Fire severity in lower

elevations and dry

forest types

3. Aquatic integrity induced by

low forest integrity in dry and

moist forest types

1. Fire severity in dry/moist

forest types

2. Aquatic integrity at risk in

areas of high fire potential

3. Old/late forest structures

in managed areas

1. Hydrologic and aquatic

systems from fire

potentials

2. Late and old forest

structures in managed

areas

3. Forest compositions -

susceptibility to insect,

disease, and fire

1. Fish strongholds from

sediment/erosion potential

2. Forest composition and

structure, especially old/late

3. Hydrologic integrity due to

fire severity and frequency

1. Forest composition and

structures especially old/late

2. Primarily present at finer

resolutions

Primary opportunities to

address risks to integrity

1. Prescription of natural

or prescribed fire to reduce

risks of severe fire

2. Reduction of stocking

levels in lower elevations -

reductions of fire

severity. Maintenance of

integrity in higher eleva

tions

1. Reduction of fire threat

in lower elevations and

manage road densities

2. Improvement of aquatic

integrity through

improving connectivity

3. Reduction of fire severity

through restoration

practices

1. Restoration of forest

integrity

2. Maintenance of aquatic

and hydrologic integrity

3. Management of road

densities

1. Restoratoion of late and

old forest structure in

managed areas

2. Connection of aquatic

strongholds through

restoration

3. Treatment of forested

areas to reduce fire,

insect, and disease

susceptibility

1. Restoration of forest

integrity through

vegetation management

2. Restoration of old/late

forest structure

3. Restoration of aquatic and

hydrologic integrity by

reducing risk of fire,

insect, and disease and

road management

1. Restoration of forest

structures

2. Maintenance of the

scattered aquatic strongholds that exist

3. Reduction of risk of fire,

insect, and disease

113
114

Forest or

Range

Clusters

Range 1

Range 2

Range 3

Range 4

Range 5

Range 6

Primary characteristics

1. Highest level of juniper

woodlands

2. High road densities

3. Low forest, range, and

composite integrity

4. Moderate aquatic and

hydrologic integrity

5. Fire regimes are more severe

1. Forested rangelands in

moderate to high integrity

2. High aquatic, hydrologic,

and composite integrity

3. Minimally roaded

1. Low forest and range integrity

2. Low and moderate hydrologic,

aquatic, and composite

integrity

3. Highly roaded

1. Very low levels of FS/BLM lands

2. Lowest integrity in all

components

3. Low levels of residual rangeland

1. Minimally roaded

2. Low croplands and other

disturbances

3. High hydrologic and forest

integrity

4. Moderate and low range

and aquatic integrity

5. Moderate and high composite

integrity

1. Highly roaded

2. Highly altered from grazing

and fire exclusion

3. High exotic species

4. Low composite integrity

Primary risks to

ecological integrity

1. Juniper encroachment

into shrubland

2. Forage for ungulates

(wild/domestic) reduced

through woodland

encroachment

3. Noxious weed expansion

1. Fish and aquatic systems

from dry vegetation types

with fire severity/frequency

changes

2. Dry forest types - especially

late/old structures

3. Aquatic system sensitivity

to disturbance

1. Conflicts with big game

management from conifer

invasion reducing forage

2. Elevated fuel and fire from

conifer invasion

3. Riparian conditions from

disturbances

4. Increased susceptibility to

insect, disease, and fire in

forested areas

1. Reduced fish habitat and

populations from agricultural

conversions

1. Continued declines in herbland and shrubland habitats

2. Risks to local populations

and habitats for fish

1. Continued declines in herbland and shrubland

2. Dry shrubland highly sensitive

to overgrazing and exotic

grass and forb invasion

Primary opportunities to

address risks to integrity

1. Reduction of forest

stocking could improve

forage/cover relationships

for livestock and big game

2. Curtailment of juniper

expansion

3. Curtailment of noxious

weed expansion

4. Management of riparian

areas to enhance stream

bank stability and riparian

vegetation

1. Restoration of vegeta

tion and fuels treatments

in dry forest types

2. Maintenance of aquatic

and hydrologic integrity -

emphasize connectivity

3. Restoration of mainte

nance sagebrush ecotone

4. Restoration of forage

production in winter range

1. Management of to restore/

maintain riparian condition?

2. Prescription of fire to

reduce risks from fire,

insect, and disease in

forested areas

3. Containment of noxious

weeds

4. Maintenance of water

quality for native and

desired non-native fish

1. Reduction of threats to

local populations of fish

and their habitat

1. Maintenance restoration

of riparian condition

2. Restoration of productive

aquatic areas

3. Conservation of fish

strongholds and unique

aquatic areas

1. Containment of exotic

weed expansion

2. Maintenance restoration of

riparian conditions

3. Management of grazing

intensity, duration, and

timing

4. Conservation of fish

strongholds and unique

aquatic areas
reduced fire frequency. Aquatic population strongholds are generally associated with headwaters and

unroaded portions of the subbasins. These subbasins

have good connectivity via unimpeded river corridors. Subbasins within this cluster are ideal for

restoration because relatively small investments could

secure relatively large, diverse and functional systems.

Forest Cluster 3

Moderate and low-integrity forest—Forests in these

subbasins are generally rated as low in integrity with

the highest mean departures in fire frequency and

severity. The subbasins have moderate road densities. Areas of late- and early-seral structures have

declined most significantly with compensating

increases in mid-seral structures with the net result

being more homogeneous forest structure. Vertebrates vulnerable to human disturbance have limited

secure habitat. Risks are highest for those species

relying on late- or early-seral forest structure and

those species using small non-forest openings or

canopy gaps. The aquatic ecosystems may be highly

productive and resilient in the face of disturbance, or

the cumulative effects of disturbance in streams may

simply lag behind changes in watersheds. Considering current knowledge and uncertainty of outcomes

for existing fish strongholds, management to restore

forest structure and composition may well represent

some of the most important risks and potential

conflicts for maintaining productive aquatic ecosystems. Watershed analysis could be an important tool

for increasing the certainty of outcomes from terrestrial ecosystem restoration activities in these

subbasins. Hydrologic integrity of these subbasins is

low to moderate. Disturbance of hydrologic function from past management activities is moderate to

high, due in large part to roads, mines, and cropland

conversion of lower-elevation valleys. Most

subbasins in this theme are classified as having moderate aquatic integrity. Subwatersheds may be vulnerable to future degradation owing to existing

development or dramatic changes in watershed

processes from large fires that could produce extensive, synchronous changes in watershed condition.

Forest Cluster 4

Low integrity, moist forests—Forests in these

subbasins exhibit low integrity and are likely to be

dominated by moist, productive forest types and

be heavily roaded. Forest structure has likely been

altered by past management and forests generally

show moderate to strong shifts in fire severity, but

less change in fire frequency. Forest structure

shows: decreases in late-seral structures in all

elevation settings; large increases in mid-seral;

decreases in early-seral; and a more homogeneous

structure overall (see photo 7). Risks to terrestrial

vertebrates that rely on late or early forest structure

in the moist forest have increased significantly.

Those species that are vulnerable to human disturPhoto 7—This young mixed forest stand of western

redcedar, western hemlock, and western white pine in

northern Idaho illustrates characteristics of a moist

forest cluster.

115
bance or exploitation have relatively low amounts

of secure habitat as a result of extensive roading.

Forest homogeneity has resulted in fewer canopy

gaps and non-forest openings. Although the

aquatic systems often have the connectivity to

sustain multiple fish life histories, the distribution

of important watersheds is often fragmented,

perhaps through habitat disruption associated with

intensive forest management. Hydrologic integrity of these subbasins is moderate. The moist

landscapes are often associated with relatively

high-frequency rain on snow events. Where

timber harvest and roading are extensive, as in the

Coeur d'Alene and St. Joe subbasins, peak flow

events may be exaggerated resulting in aggravated

channel scour and aggradation that may negatively

influence some salmonids and their habitats

(Rieman and Mclntyre 1993). Fuel management

is a priority for maintenance of hydrologic function in these subbasins. Aquatic integrity in these

subbasins is judged low or moderate. Recovery of

both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems requires

active and intensive restoration efforts. These

subbasins have high restoration potential with

much to gain and relatively little to lose.

Forest Cluster 5

Low-integrity, dry forests—Forests in these

subbasins are dominated by dry-forest with approximately 60 percent of the area showing

changes in fire frequency. They are extensively

roaded and have little wilderness. Late-seral structure increased significantly in montane forests

resulting from conversion of a variety of forest

structures dominated by shade-intolerant conifers

(such as, pine) to forests dominated by shadetolerant species (such as, fir). Mid-seral structure

increased in lower montane and montane settings.

Increases in late-seral montane have benefited

species preferring densely-stocked forests composed of shade-intolerant species (for example,

American marten, northern spotted owl, and redbacked vole). Habitat for species preferring more

open, park-like structures (for example, whiteheaded woodpecker, silver-haired bat, and

flammulated owl) has declined. Nearly 80 percent

of the area in this cluster is classified as low forest

and rangeland integrity. Hydrologic integrity of

these subbasins is low to moderate. The subbasins

associated within the Grande Ronde and John Day

river basins are in better condition than average,

supporting from 15 to 30 percent of the potential

salmonid subwatersheds in a strong condition.

Several of the subbasins in this cluster (that is,

Lower Deschutes, Upper and Lower Grande

Ronde, Umatilla, and the Upper, Middle, and

North forks of the John Day) support sensitive

populations of anadromous salmonids (the latter

three subbasins also support endangered chinook

salmon). Forests are less productive than those

associated with Forest Cluster 4, and historical

disturbance regimes imply the need for more

frequent silvicultural and prescribed fire treatments. These subbasins show moderate opportunities for restoration.

Forest Cluster 6

Mixed-integrity dry and moist forests with low

aquatic integrity—Half the forested area in this

cluster is composed of dry forest types, the other

half is split between dry and cold forest types.

This cluster has the smallest amount of FS- and

BLM-administered lands of all the forest clusters,

yet still has over one-third of its area in low roaddensity classes. This cluster has the largest proportion of its area rated as low hydrologic integrity

and aquatic integrity. Late- and early-seral structures have declined in most elevation settings; an

increase in mid-seral was the most compensating

change. Species vulnerable to human exploitation

and disturbance have a relatively low amount of

secure habitat. The aquatic systems tend to be

especially fragmented and remaining populations

of native species are often isolated. The subbasins

seem to support few and widely scattered strongholds and the poorest measures of condition for

fish communities. There will be little chance for

recreating fully connected aquatic systems either

because habitats are seriously degraded or because

remaining populations are strongly isolated. Disturbance of hydrologic function from manage116
ment activities is high primarily because of roads,

dams, and cropland conversion of lower elevation

valleys. Because remaining intact aquatic ecosystems are found primarily on Federal land, and

because these lands represent a small area of these

subbasins, flexibility in management may be

limited.

Rangeland Cluster 1

Juniper woodlands—juniper woodlands are more

common in this cluster than any other cluster

within the Basin; additionally woodland area has

substantially increased in each subbasin.

Herblands and shrublands have significantly

decreased. Forest rangelands included in this

cluster are found in the lower montane settings.

Forested rangeland changes have resulted in declines in ungulate forage and displacement of

native ungulates from historic winter ranges to less

productive montane forests. Climate associated

with juniper woodlands is dry. Large areas receive

an average of 12 or fewer inches of annual precipitation, especially in the Lower Deschutes, Trout,

Lower Crooked, Upper Crooked, and Beaver

South Fork subbasins in central Oregon. Juniper

woodlands are frequently subjected to hot,

droughty summers, and cold winters.

Western juniper communities in the subbasins of

this theme typically exist as (1) inclusions in the

forest zone, (2) old juniper woodlands, and

(3) young woodlands that in the recent past have

expanded into the sagebrush zone. Old western

juniper woodlands contain an old tree component,

one that contains trees that generally exceed 150

years. These old woodlands typically persisted on

mesa edges, ridges, and knolls characterized by

fractured bedrock near the surface, and welldrained, shallow soils that produced relatively little

understory herbaceous vegetation. These sites

were not relatively disposed to fire.

Fire, typically occurring at intervals ranging from

5 to 50 years, tended to restrict western juniper

woodland extent in the sagebrush-bunchgrass

zone. Fire frequency has declined substantially in

the western juniper woodland areas between

historic and current time periods. This is because

of a decline in fires set by American Indians,

concurrently with a reduction in fire fuel availability caused by domestic livestock grazing. Climate

and fire combined were likely causal in western

juniper expansion and retraction before 1800.

The combined effects of extensive livestock grazing in the late 1800s and early 1900s, fire exclusion over large areas, and possibly climate changes

probably are responsible for expansion of western

juniper woodlands during the last 100 years (see

photos 8a and 8b). Concomitant reduction in the

area of historical herblands and shrubland cover

generally has not proceeded at a rate that equals or

exceeds the rate of western juniper woodland

expansion.

Diffuse knapweed, yellow starthistle, medusahead,

whitetop, and Canada thistle are examples of

problematic exotic weed species in this cluster on

rangelands. Subbasins in this cluster support the

highest average road densities, and roads are causal

in the past and current spread of several exotic

weed species in this cluster, for example diffuse

knapweed. Diffuse knapweed, medusahead, and

whitetop are extensive in some locations along the

Deschutes and John Day rivers and tributaries.

Average area in cropland and pasture is low. The

hydrologic integrity of these subbasins ranges from

low to moderate and the riparian environment

integrity is commonly low. Rangeland and forest

integrity are low while aquatic and hydrologic

integrity are mixed low and moderate; the composite integrity rating is low. The Lower

Deschutes and the Upper John Day subbasins are

strongholds for native rainbow and redband trout.

The Lower Deschutes and Upper John Day

subbasins currently contain important native

steelhead and chinook salmon stocks and habitats,

and dams do not preclude connecting these existing habitats with larger functional networks.

These subbasins and their resident populations are

key to any strategy to restore conditions for

anadromous fish. The Trout subbasin (Trout

Creek primarily) also contains native steelhead

stocks but habitats are in poor condition.

117
Photo 8a and 8b. The expansion of western juniper into sagebrush-grass is evident in this

photo pair showing 1920 to 1956 change resulting form grazing and fire exclusion. The

photo pair typifies changes commonly found in the juniper woodland rangeland cluster. Source: (Skovlin and Thomas 1995.)

118
Rangeland Cluster 2

High-integrity dry-forest rangelands—dry forested

rangelands of these subbasins have been altered by

livestock grazing, timber harvest, and exclusion of

fire, but are rated as the cluster with the highest

proportion in high forest, range, aquatic, and

hydrologic integrity. The resulting composite

integrity rating was high. Subbasins are largely

blocks of wilderness and minimally roaded areas

with more than 70 percent in low or minimal

roading classes. Herblands, shrublands, and

woodlands have significantly declined. In this

century, conifers have invaded meadows, grassland

and shrubland areas, and savannah woodlands

reducing both livestock and big game forage, as

well as creating elevated fuel and increasing fire.

The loss of woodlands is most likely the result of

conifer woodland progression to dry forest. Terrestrial vertebrates most associated with ecotones

between shrubland and herbland and dry forests

would be most affected. Lower elevations of

forested rangelands support domestic livestock and

big game, and are generally where conflicts arise

between livestock production and big game management.

Diffuse knapweed, yellow starthistle, leafy spurge,

and spotted knapweed are examples of problematic exotic weed species in this cluster on rangelands. Diffuse knapweed is especially prevalent in

the Methow subbasin in north-central Washington; yellow starthistle is prevalent in the Hells

Canyon subbasin. For the cluster as a whole,

exotic weed acreage is not extensive on rangeland.

Hydrologic and riparian environment integrity of

these subbasins is high. These subbasins support

riparian environments that are some of the most

resilient to livestock grazing. The best conditions

in the aquatic ecosystems within rangelands are

associated with the subbasins in this cluster. The

subwatersheds and aquatic systems that are most

degraded, however, may be associated with the

lower gradient and lower elevation rangeland

portions of these subbasins. Connectivity of

subwatersheds that function as native fish strongholds is good, and strongholds for more than one

species are often present in subwatersheds

throughout the subbasins. Fish populations and

communities associated with these subbasins are

among the most resilient in the Basin and represent core distributions for many of the sensitive

salmonids. Because these lands tend to be productive and more resilient to disturbance than others,

there could be some opportunities to maintain

commodity production with little risk to other

components of the system provided they are focused in the areas least important to the aquatic

system. These subbasins can likely withstand the

consequences of some large-scale fires in the

higher elevation cold and moist forest areas, and

fish populations will likely persist in the absence of

management intervention. The occurrence of

large fires in the lower-elevation dry forests poses a

somewhat different threat.

Rangeland Cluster 3

Moderate integrity dry-forest rangelands—These

subbasins are among the most altered by livestock

grazing, timber harvest practices, and exclusion of

fire compared to presettlement condition. These

subbasins are dominated by moderate or high road

densities and have the highest level of fire frequency among the rangeland clusters. Substantial

declines in the amount of herblands, shrublands,

and mixed conifer woodlands have occurred.

Effects of fire exclusion and grazing have been

compounded by harvest practices in dry-forest

types promoting dense, multi-layered forests with

increasing amounts of shade-tolerant, insect and

pathogen-susceptible conifers, and reduced understory shrub and herbaceous cover. Shrub and

herbaceous understories are also typically less

productive and diverse than they were historically.

Subbasins of this cluster were severely affected by

extensive, heavy cattle and sheep grazing in the

late 1800s and early 1900s, both at low and high

elevations. Many areas are recovering as a result of

decreased grazing pressure (Skovlin and Thomas

1995), prescribed fire, and cultural treatments.

Curbing the expansion of introduced exotic weeds

continues to be a substantial management chal119
lenge in these subbasins. Whitetop, diffuse

knapweed, spotted knapweed, yellow starthistle,

leafy spurge, sulfur cinquefoil, and medusahead

are examples of problematic exotic weed species

in this cluster on rangeland. Examples of

subbasins that support extensive infestations of

these exotic weeds include the Powder in northeast Oregon (whitetop and medusahead),

Kettle, Sanpoil, Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake,

Colville, and Lower Spokane in northeast

Washington (diffuse knapweed), the Little

Spokane, Upper Spokane, and Hangman in

eastern Washington (spotted knapweed), and

the lower Flathead, Blackfoot, Bitterroot, and

Upper Clark Fork in Western Montana (spotted

knapweed, leafy spurge, sulfur cinquefoil).

In this century, conifers have invaded meadows,

grassland and shrubland areas, and savannah

woodlands reducing both livestock and big game

forage, as well as increasing fuel loadings and fire

intensity and severity. Hydrologic and riparian

integrity is low.

Aquatic integrity is rated as moderate or low, while

forest and range integrity are mostly low. For the

most part, remaining native fish populations are

fragmented, represented by remnant and isolated

populations scattered throughout the subbasins.

Some subwatersheds within these subbasins support remnant strongholds, isolated populations of

listed or sensitive species, or narrowly endemic

species that will be priorities for conservation.

More than 50 percent of the area of these

subbasins is on public lands.

Rangeland Cluster 4

Columbia croplands—These subbasins are primarily composed of croplands and pasture. Rangelands in these subbasins have the lowest overall

integrity of all rangelands in the Basin. Extensive

irrigation systems are present. Herbland and

shrubland have significantly decreased compared

to presettlement. The climate of these subbasins is

typically dry; area of subbasins experiencing less

than 12 inches of average annual precipitation is

51 percent. Although the climate of the area is

relatively dry, protracted droughts do not occur as

commonly in subbasins of this cluster as in those

of other clusters, and growing seasons are fairly

long. Soils of the Columbia croplands are deep,

wind-deposited loessial soils that developed with

the retreat of the glaciers. Topography is gentle

and much of the area was dominated by dry

shrubland and dry grasslands. Narrow to wide,

gentle valley bottoms were once dominated by

riparian woodland, riparian shrub, or riparian herb

types. Most of these areas have been converted to

herbaceous pasture, hay, or croplands. Small areas

of native herbland and shrubland amongst cropland still exist where steep slopes and relatively

shallow soils predominate, or in military reservations, nuclear reservations, parks, reserves, cemeteries, or railroad rights-of-way. Of the grassland

and shrubland areas that have not been converted

to cropland or pasture, many have been heavily

grazed and are now undergoing invasion by exotic

weeds.

Whitetop, diffuse knapweed, yellow starthistle,

Russian knapweed, Canada thistle, Scotch thistle,

and cheatgrass are examples of problematic exotic

weed species in this cluster on rangeland. Of these

species, Canada thistle and cheatgrass are widespread

in the cluster. For the remaining weeds listed, examples of subbasins that support extensive infestations include the Okanogan, Lower Yakima, Banks

Lake, and Lower Crab (diffuse knapweed and/or

Russian knapweed), and the Walla Walla, Lower

Snake-Tucannon, Lower Snake-Asotin, and Umatilla

(yellow starthistle and/or Scotch thistle). Conversion

of native herblands and shrublands to agricultural

types has diminished habitat for a large number of

species.

Hydrologic and riparian environment integrity of

these subbasins is low. The potential for streams to

recover following disturbance is the lowest of any

rangeland setting within the Basin. The subbasins in

this cluster are strongly degraded from an aquatic

perspective. Most native fishes currently exist as very

isolated populations. There is little opportunity for

restoration to more functional aquatic ecosystems.

120
Rangeland Cluster 5

Moderate integrity upland shrublands—These

subbasins represent the bulk of high elevation

ranges. Shrublands in this cluster, although

influenced by grazing (see photo 9), fire exclusion, and exotic weed invasion, are least affected

by humans. They have low levels of road densities and cropland, but have high levels of wildland/urban fire risk interface. Declines in

herbland and shrubland habitats observed

within Rangeland Cluster 5 have contributed to

observed declines in populations of species

associated with these habitats (table 18). An

average of nearly 4 percent of the area of each

subbasin has been invaded by exotic plants in

this cluster.

Diffuse knapweed, yellow starthistle, spotted

knapweed, leafy spurge, rush skeletonweed,

medusahead, cheatgrass, and Canada thistle are

examples of problematic exotic weed species in

this cluster on rangeland. Examples of subbasins

that support extensive infestations of these exotic

weeds include the Upper Columbia-Entiat and

Upper Yakima in Washington (diffuse knapweed),

the Imnaha in Oregon (yellow starthistle), and the

Upper Owyhee, Bruneau, and Salmon Falls in

Idaho (cheatgrass and/or medusahead). Hydrologic and riparian environment integrity of these

subbasins is high and moderate, respectively.

These subbasins commonly provide the fewest

limitations to rangeland management from a

hydrologic integrity perspective (that is, they are

resilient and have not been overly affected in the

past). Areal extent of upland shrubland in the

cool shrub PVG is larger relative to other clusters.

Rangelands in these subbasins tend to be more

resilient to grazing pressure and can be more likely

maintained and/or restored to proper functioning

condition. Because of the relatively good or improving condition of many of the rangeland communities and the remaining integrity in aquatic

ecosystems, there is opportunity for management

to benefit both.

Photo 9—This photo illustrates characteristics of a moderate integrity, dry forest rangeland

cluster. Livestock use on FS- and BLM-administered lands is common within the Basin.

121
Figure 40—Composite ecological integrity ratings synthesized the forest, rangeland, forest and rangeland hydrologic, and

aquatic component integrity ratings.

1 2 2

CONTINUED
Rangeland Cluster 6

Low integrity upland shrublands—These

subbasins are primarily located on the Snake River

Plain and in south-central Oregon and have been

significantly altered by grazing and fire exclusion.

They are dominated by dry shrubland vegetation,

which is the most extensive rangeland PVG in this

cluster. It is highly sensitive to overgrazing and

susceptible to invasion by exotic grasses and forbs.

Agriculture, dry forest, and cool shrub, in that

order, follow in sensitivity the dry shrub PVG.

Shrublands and herblands have declined owing to

conversion to agriculture, change in fire regimes,

increases in conifer woodlands, and encroachment

by exotics, including the conversion to crested

wheatgrass and other desirable exotic grasses.

Similar to Rangeland Cluster 5> an average of

nearly 4 percent of the area of each subbasin has

been invaded by exotic plants in this cluster.

Dyers wood, diffuse knapweed, yellow starthistle,

leafy spurge, medusahead, cheatgrass, Mediterranean sage, and whitetop are examples of problematic exotic weed species in this cluster on

rangeland. Examples of subbasins that support

extensive infestations of these exotic weeds include

the Warner Lakes, Guano, and Upper Malheur in

Oregon (medusahead and/or Mediterranean sage),

the Lake Wolcott and American Falls in Idaho,

(cheatgrass), and the Middle Snake-Payette (yellow

starthistle). The increase in mixed conifer woodlands is most likely the result of conifer invasion of

herbland and shrubland areas.

Hydrologic integrity of these subbasins ranges

from low to moderate, whereas the integrity of the

riparian environments they contain is commonly

low. The subbasins in this cluster represent some

of the most strongly altered conditions for aquatic

systems in the assessment area. Where redband

trout now persist, they generally occur in highly

fragmented habitat and in isolated populations.

Steelhead historically inhabited tributary basins of

the middle Snake River (such as the Malheur and

Owyhee Rivers), but are now blocked by the Hells

Canyon complex of hydroelectric dams. The

lower Grande Ronde and Middle Fork John Day

River subbasins are exceptions within this cluster

as they both support native chinook salmon and

steelhead trout. In addition to the Federally listed

chinook salmon, the Lower Grande Ronde River

contains numerous continuous strongholds of

native rainbow and bull trout. Aquatic integrity of

the lower Grande Ronde River is among the highest because of the presence of native fish strongholds, even though it has low forest and

hydrologic integrity. Consequently, these strongholds may be short lived. The Middle Fork John

Day River subbasin has numerous strongholds of

native rainbow and steelhead trout and has high

fish community integrity; few exotic fishes have

been introduced into this subbasin. Subbasins

along the middle Snake River above Hell's Canyon

historically supported anadromous fish, but do so

no longer. In many of these subbasins, there is

little hope of restoring any resemblance of historical structure and composition of aquatic communities.

Composite Ecological Integrity

We used five component integrity ratings (forestland, rangeland, forestland and rangeland hydrologic, and aquatic systems) to estimate the current

composite ecological integrity of each subbasin

(see fig. 40). Component integrity ratings were

based on information brought forward through

the Component Assessment, the Evaluation of Alternatives (Quigley and others 1996b, hereafter called

the Evaluation) which includes a discussion of

landscape integrity, terrestrial integrity (Marcot

1996), and our understandings of conditions and

trends. Composite integrity was estimated by

comparing the component integrity ratings and

our knowledge of actual on-the-ground conditions, with how each subbasin met the definitions

described above for systems with high ecological

integrity. We found that at present 16 percent of

the area is in high (of which 84 percent is FS- and

BLM-administered lands), 24 percent is in moderate, and 60 percent is in low ecological integrity

(fig. 4 la). Much of this last category includes

lands used for agricultural and grazing uses, and a

low rating does not imply low productivity or

123

This file was created by scanning the printed publication.

Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; 

however, some errors may remain.
Figure 41 a—Percent of the Basin by composite ecological integrity.

other similar implications. The rating system

emphasizes ecological processes and functions and

thus, has a tendency to rate human-altered systems

lower than systems dominated by more natural

processes. Finally, 26 percent of the FS- and

BLM-administered lands are rated as high integrity, 29 percent are rated as medium, and 45

percent as low (fig. 4lb).

Social and Economic Resiliency

Both social and economic resiliency measure the

adaptability of human systems (Component Assessment—Economics). Social resiliency was measured using four factors: (1) civic infrastructure

(that is, leadership, preparedness for change); (2)

economic diversity; (3) social/cultural diversity

(population size, mix of skills); and (4) amenity

infrastructure (that is, attractiveness of the community and surrounding area). Economic resiliency was measured by the diversity among

employment sectors. The assumption is that

people in high resiliency counties have ready access

to a range of employment opportunities if specific

firms or business sectors experience downturns.

Much like the biophysical components of the

ecosystem, social and economic resiliency are

affected by the size of the area measured (such as

community, county, and trade regions) but they

also reflect human notions of the landscape rather

than hydrologic subbasins. In general, larger units

display greater economic diversity (and by extension, economic and social resiliency) than smaller

Figure 41 b—Percent of FS- and BLM-administered

land by composite ecological integrity rating.

areas. Further, since resiliency attempts to measure a capacity for human response, classifications

of either social or economic resiliency serve as

relative estimates of adaptability, rather than

absolute descriptors.

When we look at the Basin from the social and

economic perspective our basic frame of reference

is how humans organize themselves both in a

community sense and how they relate to their

biophysical environment. One overarching feature

of this perspective is the speed at which human

communities, interests, values, and economies

change. Given this characteristic, one useful and

relatively permanent administrative feature is the

county. We observe that counties and available

county data can be used to describe broad trends

in social and economic resiliency. There is another

powerful argument for considering counties. That

is, their role as entities in a political system that

simultaneously relates federal, state, and local

interactions.

Economic Resiliency

The ratings for economic resiliency indicate that

the economies within the Basin are diverse, and

consequently have high economic resiliency. The

average economic resiliency index for the nine

BEA regions is 0.80 and there is little variation

among BEA regions. These findings make sense as

per capita income is rising rapidly and there are

few pockets of poverty in the Basin. Furthermore,

the economy of the Basin has shown resistance to

124
national recessions except when they greatly affect

the agricultural sector.

The highest resiliency ratings are for the Boise,

Idaho Falls, Missoula, and Spokane BEA regions. The BEA economies in which employment associated with recreation is substantial

have high resiliency suggesting they have high

potential resilience to fluctuations in recreation

activity (Idaho Falls, Idaho; Missoula, Montana;

and Redmond-Bend, Oregon). The two BEA

regions in which timber plays a major role

(Redmond-Bend and Pendleton) also have fairly

diverse economies, suggesting they are resistant

to fluctuations in that industry. The resiliency

rating for Butte, Montana is misleading because

diversity is calculated for only that portion of

the BEA region lying in the Basin.

Estimating resiliency at the county level based on

employment diversity provides a different picture

requiring some care to interpret. The average

resiliency index for the 100 counties in the Basin

is 0.70, much lower than the statistics calculated

for the Basin BEA areas. This difference suggests

that employment options, and thus employment

diversity, is less at the county level than the larger

BEA areas. This is generally true; the smaller the

area the fewer options exist for employment as

compared to larger areas. Seventeen percent of the

counties within the Basin have high economic

resiliency (fig. 42).

Social Resiliency

Like economic resiliency social resiliency could be

addressed at many scales, and yet because of abiding local interest in the future of their communities, the examination of social resiliency is

generally focused on the community level. Although communities are highly individualistic, a

general distribution of levels of community resiliency was described by Harris in 1996.18

 Key

18Harris, Chuck. 1996. Rural Communities in the Inland

Northwest, characteristics of small towns in the interior and

upper Columbia River basins: an assessment of the past and

present (final report: parts 1 and 2). On file with: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department

of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla

Walla, WA 99362. 348 p.

differences were found among communities based

on population size, local attractiveness, and economic diversity. These descriptions revealed a

pattern across the Basin that is closely associated

with annual levels of precipitation. In general,

communities that are of smaller size and lower

resiliency in the Basin follow the arid crescent that

reaches south from the Columbia Plateau in eastern Washington, around the western and southern

boundaries of the Blue Mountains in Oregon, and

continues east along the Snake River plains in

Idaho. This area includes the Columbia Plateau,

the Owyhee Uplands, and the Upper Snake ERUs.

This is the zone that receives less than 12 inches

(30 cm) of precipitation each year, and although it

contains prosperous, large, irrigated agricultural

operations, the dry, climate has resulted in few

towns of over 1,000 people and limited economic

diversity.

Communities that exhibit higher levels of resiliency are located along the Cascade crest, the

central mountains of Idaho, and in the vicinity of

Missoula, Montana (in terms of ERUs, the Northern and Southern Cascades, the Central Idaho

Mountains, and the Upper Clark Fork). These

communities have high levels of scenic attractiveness and more diverse economies than those that

are located in the arid crescent. These are the areas

that contain the highest concentrations of Forest

Service administered lands, have higher levels of

rainfall, and are generally montane environments.

These settings receive the greatest amount of

recreational use in the Basin in terms of recreation

activity days, and they are the location of the

regions fastest rates of human population growth.

When compared to other communities across the

Basin, those exhibiting high levels of community

resiliency did not show any differences in levels of

perceived community cohesion, services, local

government effectiveness, and civic leadership.

In examining community-level changes, Harris

discovered that those communities that have been

confronted with and survived challenges—such as

sawmill closures—are among the most resilient

because they have successfully learned how to deal

125
Figure 42—The economic diversity of each county was used to develop economic resiliency ratings.

126
with change. Communities that have experienced

what may seem to be fatal blows, such as the

closing of mines in Wallace, Idaho, have continued

to carry on based on a reorientation to new economic activities. Adversity, although painful and

not without casualties, often provides incentive for

social interaction and cooperation, catalyzing

organization and forward-directed actions.

It appears that a large majority of the communities

in the Basin are well-positioned to adapt to the

changes. In the Basin, education and skill levels

are above United States averages and continue to

improve with population growth. Although

exceptions exist, the smaller communities in the

arid, agricultural portions of the Basin face the

greatest challenges. Their lower resiliency is associated with fewer physical amenities and fewer

business opportunities, since consolidations and

technological advances within agriculture have

constrained new entries into this sector. The highquality environments in the Basin, particularly

those areas with water and forests, appear to be

positive contributors to social resiliency. These

settings attract new migrants, provide a diverse set

of business options, and offer abundant recreation

opportunities for an increasingly mobile and

wealthy society.

Risks to Social and Economic

Resiliency

These assessments of social and economic resiliency do not mean that human systems in the

Basin face no risks. Structural changes in the U.S.

economy (for example, the growth in the trade

and service sectors) and technological changes, like

telecommunications, will continue to affect economic and social well-being. These changes have

allowed people greater choice about where and

how to live. In the Basin, this freedom has manifested itself in the argument that quality of life is

driving social and economic changes. Many of the

notions behind social resiliency are based on the

experience of the past five years which has been a

period of rapid economic growth fueled in part by

extensive immigration. From the standpoint of

assessing risk, we caution that the Basin has experienced periods of both in-migration and outmigration. In the 1980s, for example, the Basin

experienced net out-migration as the United States

coped with periods of severe recession, structural

changes in the economy that diminished the role

of resource-based (including agriculture) economies, and booms in selected economic sectors and

regions. Finally, there is the offsetting factor that

humans are the most adaptable creatures in the

Basins ecosystems and that in spite of the change

they will adapt and continue to demand ecosystem

goods and services.

Social and Economic Clusters

Like the forest and range clusters, groupings of

counties can be developed based on physical and

demographic attributes. The Johnson and Beale

(1995) typology is one of several typologies that

sort the 3,041 counties in the United States into

different clusters (by economic activity, policy

focus, or other). The Johnson and Beale typology

was originally an attempt to identify the fastest

growing counties in the United States. In general,

they found that there were three patterns of

growth. The first was a pattern of very high

growth owing to high migration rates in counties

that seem to contain significant recreation opportunities. These recreation counties are those that

possess a combination of amenities and services

that attract new migrants, many of whom are

retirees or footloose entrepreneurs who seek environments and lifestyles that are cleaner and less

stressful than those found in typical urban centers.

The second were those counties that contained

significant urban populations. The remaining

counties experienced slower rates of growth.

Figure 24 is a map of these three types of counties

(there are 21 recreation, 6 metropolitan, and 77

others counties in the Basin). One implication

from that map is that the social and economic

systems in the Basin are affected by the ecosystems

in which they are embedded. These same ecosystems are contributing to changes in human population densities. For example, the Basin is

generally experiencing a period of population

127
growth-96 percent of the Basins counties increased in population for the period 1990 to 1994,

reversing the trend of the 1980s. Recent population growth has been concentrated, however, in

those counties that Johnson and Beale classified as

either "urban" (metro) or "recreation."

Developing a Measure of

Socioeconomic Resiliency

After measuring social and economic resiliency

separately, the next step was to devise a measure of

social and economic resiliency that can be used to

assess the broad goal for ecosystem management.

This composite rating combines three factors discussed as part of social and economic resiliency:

population density (expressed as people per square

mile), economic resiliency (defined by economic

diversity), and lifestyle diversity. We assigned the

socioeconomic resiliency ratings (fig. 43) based on

the sum of the total ratings for each of the three

factors where each was weighted equally.

A low socioeconomic resiliency rating is defined as

counties with low population density (<11 people/

sq. mile, 4.3 people/sq. km), low or medium economic resiliency, and low or medium lifestyle diversity. In the Basin, there are 54 such counties. These

counties account for 68 percent of the area but only

18 percent of the population. As shown in figure 43

many of the counties traditionally thought of as

agricultural are in this category. There are 14 counties that have medium economic resiliency, but most

of them are among the least densely populated

counties in the Basin (<6 people/sq. mile, 2.3

people/sq. km) and most contain National Forests.

A medium socioeconomic resiliency rating is defined

as counties with mostly medium economic resiliency

ratings and generally either medium or high lifestyle

diversity or population density ratings. In the Basin,

there are 20 such counties. Exceptions include

Klickitat County, which has low economic resiliency

and high lifestyle diversity, and Cassia County,

which has low population density but medium

economic and lifestyle diversity. Baker County has

the lowest population density ratings, but a medium

level of economic resiliency reflecting a diverse

economy, and the highest level of lifestyle diversity

reflecting great adaptability of its social systems.

A high socioeconomic resiliency rating is defined as

counties that are more densely populated (> 11

people/sq. mile) and have the highest economic

resiliency. There are 26 such counties in the Basin.

Counties with high socioeconomic resiliency typically have high population densities, medium economic resiliency, and medium to high lifestyle

diversity values. The exceptions to these are Klamath

County, which has low population density but high

economic resiliency and high lifestyle diversity and

Silver Bow County, which has low economic resiliency, but high population density and high lifestyle

diversity. High lifestyle diversities in these two counties suggest that there are higher infrastructure values

than the population densities would suggest.

This approach recognizes the 44 (of 100) counties

with very low (< 6 people/sq. mile) population

densities, sometimes called "frontier counties."

Typically these counties have low socioeconomic

resiliency, and include many of the 60 Basin counties

labeled "Federal" in the sense that more than 33

percent of their area is in Federal ownership. The

interest in identifying these so-called frontier counties is a concern that they may lack sufficient population to sustain existing services or to develop

necessary social services. A related concern is

whether they are able to maintain the existing infrastructure both in the physical sense and in the social

sense especially in the sense of community. For

example, there are counties that are too sparsely

populated to sustain a medical clinic. This relative

isolation also stimulates some people to locate in

these areas. Some people choose these counties

specifically because they are sparsely settled.

We caution against concluding that low to high

ratings are equivalent to bad or good ratings; the

intent is to describe the adaptability or vulnerability

of these counties, not to rate them as good or bad.

Generally, most of the people in the Basin (82%) live

in counties that are medium or high in the degree of

adaptability, as measured by the socioeconomic

resiliency. Most of the land area (68%) in the Basin,

however, is in the low category for socioeconomic

resiliency.

128
Figure 43—Socioeconomic resiliency ratings are the sum of ratings for economic resiliency, population density, and lifestyle diversity.

1 2 9
Risks Associated with the PeopleWildland Interaction

Risks to ecological integrity are affected in two ways

(Component Assessment—Introduction, Quigley and

others 1996a). First, risks to ecological integrity can

be affected if the demands of people (for both commodities and services) outstrip the capability of an

ecosystem or if land-use decisions limit the capability

of an ecosystem. Second, the risks can be affected to

the extent biophysical systems affect people, their

assets, and elements they value especially at the

people-wildland interface. We assumed that risk to

ecological integrity is generally higher in proximity to

densely populated areas, and risk to people and their

assets is generally higher in close proximity to wildland areas than to agricultural or urban areas. Natural events occurring within wildland areas might

prove risky to people, homes, and other assets people

value that are associated with wildland areas. The

integrity of ecosystems is also influenced by the

presence of people and their activities.

Floods, fire, road slumping, culvert plugging,

cougars frequenting backyards, deer and elk eating

ornamental shrubs, and coyotes bothering pets are

all examples of increasing risks to people and their

assets associated with their proximity to wildland

areas. Generally the more wild the area the higher

the risk; more humans living in close proximity to

wildland areas the greater the risk. We assumed a

symmetric relationship exists concerning the risks

to the integrity of wildland areas from human

influence and the risks faced by humans in proximity to wildland areas. Road building, fishing,

camping, hiking, wood cutting, berry picking, and

development of recreation sites are all examples of

activities that tend to increase in wildland areas in

close proximity to population centers, with larger

population centers having higher activity levels.

These activities tend to create risk to ecological

integrity. Recreation tends more toward developed site recreation while still supporting increased dispersed recreation.

Photo 10—The separation of towns and cities from the forest land and rangeland is becoming less as this central Oregon community scene demonstrates.

130
Societal risk to ecological integrity and risk to

people and their assets from wildlands were estimated using a set of rules that related population

density to forest, non-forest, and agricultural

wildland vegetation groups. Higher-population

densities in proximity to forest and rangeland

vegetation types were rated as having higher risk

than low-population density areas (see photo 10).

Agricultural lands were rated with lower risks than

forest and rangeland areas. To estimate the risk

associated with the FS and BLM portion of the

wildland areas, a set of rules was developed that

related urban-rural classes to FS and BLM vegetation groups. This relation assumes a generally

higher risk associated with forested vegetation

groups than with nonforested vegetation types

and higher risk with increasing population

densities.

Risks associated with the interaction of urban and

wildland areas are associated with the six major

metropolitan areas within the Basin (Boise area,

Idaho; Missoula, Montana; Spokane, Tri-Cities,

and Yakima, Washington). Missoula, the Boise

area, and Yakima are in close proximity to FS- and

BLM-administered lands and therefore are anticipated to have a greater risk associated with the

interface of FS and BLM wildlands than Spokane

or the Tri-Cities. Spokane does have substantial

wildland interface risks, but they are mostly associated with private land. Tri-Cities is a mixture of

wildland and agricultural interfaces. Where these

metro areas are in close proximity to high-integrity

wildlands, risks to the maintenance or improvement of ecological integrity would be high. Likewise these metro areas would pose higher risk to

areas in close proximity of high integrity than to

areas of low integrity, suggesting additional emphasis to manage the risks to attain and maintain

high ecological integrity.

Risks to human assets from wildland areas and

risks to ecological integrity are not restricted to

metropolitan areas. Rural areas where people

reside as well as primitive areas where people are

only visitors also have risks. Risks include wildfire; flood; wild animals; maintenance of improvements; mitigation on cropland from elk and deer;

cougars, bears, and coyotes killing livestock; and,

increasing risks associated with implementation of

management activities (for example, prescribed fire

in proximity to people and structures). Additional

human-related risks and complications arise from

local publics who may prefer stability in scenery

and lobby to have projects put in someone else's

back yard, pressure to have low levels of harvest

and grazing in specific areas, and pressure for

increased recreation activities dispersed throughout the wildland areas. Sparsely populated areas

generally have fewer resources to address risks or

assist in control of natural events such as fire,

flood, and insect outbreaks than exist in the metropolitan areas. The demand for FS and BLM

participation in managing the risks within the

least-populated areas will generally be high. Small

communities typically have the least ability to

provide social infrastructure and to manage risks

(for example, fire) from wildland influences.

Considering all land within the Basin, approximately 58 percent of the area is classed as low

urban/rural area with approximately 23 percent as

high or very high. This reflects the low density of

population within much of the Basin. Translating

this societal risk to ecological integrity from people

and the risk to human assets from wildland areas

there is about 58 percent with low risk and 21

percent with high or very high risk (fig. 44). Thus

Figure 44—Societal risk of human-ecological interaction: percent of the Basin with low, moderate, high, or

very high risk associated with the management of

human ecological interactions.

131
Photo 11—The expansion of human habitation into the wildland setting introduces risks from

fire and other disturbances. This complicates the FS- and BLM-management of these risks.

the majority of the area in the Basin would be

viewed as having low risk from a societal standpoint. The risks differ by location with the very

high risks associated with the major metropolitan

areas in the Basin. The view from the FS and

BLM manager s frame of reference would be

slightly different (fig. 45). Removing the non-FSand BLM-administered lands from consideration

and recalculating the risk to ecological integrity

from people and the risk to human assets from

wildlands shifts to a higher risk in general. On FS

and BLM lands approximately 50 percent is

classed as moderate risk while about 19 percent is

classed as high or very high (fig. 46). Thus, from

the FS and BLM perspective there are more risks

to manage the wildland areas than might be

viewed by society as a whole. Forested vegetation

occurring in areas of moderate urban-rural classes

results in high risk from the FS and BLM

manager's perspective, while society might consider this as a moderate risk to all ownerships (see

photo 11).

Managing risks in areas where human populations

are increasing becomes more complex as fewer

options for treatment become available. Managing

smoke from prescribed fire, reducing tree densities in

areas with high scenic values, fencing riparian areas

frequented by recreationists, and allowing flooding to

occur naturally in stream channels are all examples of

increasing complexity as human populations increase

in proximity to wildland areas.

132
Figure 45—Level of risk associated with the management of human ecological interactions on FS-and BLM-administered lands.

1 3 3
Discussion of Ecosystem

Integrity

The challenge is how to bring these notions of

ecological integrity and socioeconomic resiliency

together to make some broad statements about

ecosystem conditions in the Basin and to answer

the questions posed at the beginning of this section. The results for the twin themes of ecological

integrity and socioeconomic resiliency are shown

in figure 47. In this section we will briefly discuss

the construction of this figure and the implications that can be drawn from it.

The first step in construction of figure 47 involves

developing a rating of composite integrity (fig. 40)

based on initial integrity ratings for aquatic integrity, forest integrity, range integrity, and hydrologic

integrity. In figure 40, high ecological integrity

includes the subbasins that exhibit the highest

level of the elements of integrity described in the

previous chapter. Low ecological integrity includes

subbasins that exhibit the lowest level of the elements of integrity. Medium ecological integrity

includes those areas that are intermediate in their

exhibition of the elements of integrity. The next

step involves adding the ratings of socioeconomic

resiliency already discussed in this chapter.

In figure 47 the leftmost set of bars represent the

composite ecological rating. If all of the underlying components are high, the composite rating is

high; if all are low the composite rating is low; if

there is a mix of ratings then an assignment is

made based on judgment of the conditions in the

subbasin. The next two sets of bars represent the

ratings of socioeconomic resiliency expressed in

two ways. In the center, socioeconomic resiliency

is expressed on an area basis. It shows that 68

percent of the area in the Basin has low socioeconomic resiliency. The rightmost set of bars in

figure 47 show only 17 percent of the population

lives in these areas of low socioeconomic resiliency.

Indeed, 67 percent of the people in the Basin live

in areas of high socioeconomic resiliency. One

should not assume that the population that lives in

Figure 46—FS/BLM risk of human-ecological interaction: percent of FS- and BLM-administered land with

very high, high, moderate, and low risk associated with

the management of human ecological interactions.

areas of low socioeconomic resiliency (17%) experience low economic or social well-being. Rather,

that these people live in areas that have a low level

of adaptability to change.

The first question posed at the beginning of this

section asked where ecological integrity and socioeconomic resiliency are high, medium, and low.

Figures 40 and 43 show how these measures differ

across the basin.

Several trends become apparent with regard to

those places within the Basin where ecological

integrity and socioeconomic resiliency is high,

medium, or low. Some of these trends are:

1. There is an apparent relation between economic

(and social) activity and ecological integrity.

High levels of activity have taken place in areas

with high ecological integrity, less activity in

areas with low ecological integrity. For example, many of the areas with low economic

resiliency ratings and low population densities

are associated with the dry forests and rangelands that have low ecological integrity, just as

the moist and cold forested areas are associated

with higher economic resiliency. This does not

mean that low ecological integrity leads to

impoverished human conditions, as many of

these subbasins are in counties with above134
average per capita incomes derived from

agriculture or less diverse areas of manufacturing. Other than for central Washington and

parts of southern Idaho this same relation holds

for population densities because the effects of

Interstate 84 offset the underlying relations

between the social and ecological factors. It is

important to recall that the integrity ratings are

relative ratings within the Basin and are keyed

to the presence or absence of ecological processes and functions. Under this rating system

one would expect agricultural lands to rate

lower than areas that are managed less intensively.

2. There are several areas where human pressures

may threaten areas of high ecological integrity.

Yakima and Chelan Counties are examples.

3. The urban/forest interface issue will be most

acute where high population and high economic resiliency coincides with areas of moderate-to-high integrity (such as northern Idaho

and northwest Montana). Another concern is

the propensity for wildland fire in dry forest

and range types that occur in an urbanizing

environment such as the Spokane metropolitan

area (Stevens, Spokane, and Kootenai Counties), Deschutes County, the area just north of

Boise, Idaho (Payette, Gem, and Washington

Counties), and the area between the Flathead

and Lolo National Forests (Lake County).

4. The Basin is fortunate (as is the country) in

that some of the highest ecological integrity for

both forest and range clusters occur in large

contiguous blocks in areas where human

population density is low and is projected to

remain low. One example is the central Idaho

wilderness.

135

Figure 47—Percentage of the Basin by ecological integrity and socioeconomic resiliency ratings.
CHAPTER 5

THE FUTURE OF THE BASIN:

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY

AND SOCIOECONOMIC

RESILIENCY CONDITIONS

AND TRENDS

The objectives for the integrated assessment include a description of probable outcomes, risks,

and tradeoffs associated with management actions.

Meeting this objective necessitates an examination

of some possible futures within the Basin. In the

early stages of integration the Science Integration

Team considered four broad scenarios that described a wide array of management futures on FSand BLM-administered lands. These ranged from

heavy emphasis on commodity production—to

emphasis on reserves—to emphasis on active management. These scenarios and the accompanying

projections of outcomes served as a basis for more

fully defined alternative approaches to management. The EIS Team developed a set of projected

alternatives for the Draft EIS. The consequences,

outcomes, and tradeoffs associated with potential

implementation of the alternatives were analyzed

in the Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the SIT

(see the Evaluation). Understanding the past and

recognizing the risks and opportunities present

under current conditions, as described by the

forest and rangeland clusters, provides the biophysical underpinnings for future management

options.

We describe possible outcomes associated with

three management options. Discussion of future

outcomes as a part of the Integrated Assessment

provides opportunity to describe integrated effects,

risks, and tradeoffs. Although a more complete

discussion of these is provided in the Evaluation,

we thought a discussion that provides highlights

for a few of the EIS alternatives would enable

readers to better understand the relations and

processes discussed in the assessment by providing

discussion on historic, current, and potential

future conditions in a single document.

The analysis of future management options involves four major steps. First, define the management approaches in terms of the objectives,

standards, guidelines, description of desired future

conditions, management emphasis, and activity

levels. These elements were provided by the EIS

team for each management option and are summarized here. Second, estimate future conditions

for the ecologic and economic systems within the

Basin. This involves modeling or otherwise projecting changes in vegetation structure and composition, terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and

socioeconomic conditions. Third, estimate the

trend in ecological integrity under each management option for the next 100 years. This starts

with the current composite ecological integrity

and examines indices that reflect change in composite integrity. Fourth, develop estimates of the

socioeconomic resiliency for these management

options. Because of limited abilities to forecast

overall economic activity, we estimate changes in

socioeconomic resiliency for the next decade. We

also use the estimated shift in population density

for the next 50 years as a broad proxy for socioeconomic change in the Basin. These provide useful

estimates to show how the management options

influence ecological integrity and socioeconomic

resiliency and how the risks of implementation

might change in the longer term.

137
Future Management Options

The future management options draw heavily

from the Environmental Impact Statements being

prepared as part of the ICBEMP process. They

provide a coordinated approach to a scientifically

sound, ecosystem-based management strategy for

lands administered by the FS or BLM in the

Basin. The emphases in the management options

are to restore and maintain long-term ecosystem

health and integrity, to support the economic and/

or social needs of people, cultures and communities, and to support predictable levels of goods and

services from National Forest System and Bureau

of Land Management lands.

Three EIS alternatives19 are used to illustrate

possible futures for the Basin: Management Option 1, continuation of current management called

the no action alternative (EIS Alternative 1);

Management Option 2, emphasis on restoration

(EIS Alternative 4); and Management Option 3,

emphasis on reserve areas (EIS Alternative 7).

Option 1

Option 1 continues management specified under

existing FS and BLM plans. Implementation of

this option would occur assuming continuation of

recent budgets and no interim direction such as

Eastside screens, INFISH, or PACFISH.20 This

option displays the Federal agencies' use of existing

plans to manage lands and resources into the

future. Existing FS and BLM plans include Regional Guides, Forest Plans (for each National

Forest), and Resource Management Plans and

Management Framework Plans (for BLM Resource Areas). Option 1 includes direction from

current land-use plans of 35 National Forests and

17 BLM Districts. Although substantial variation

19The effects and outcomes reported here are for the EIS

alternatives as they existed in April 1996. The alternatives

were in draft form at that point and were subject to change.

Readers should refer directly to the most recent version of the

EIS to understand the proposed management actions as they

are evolving.

20For a more detailed discussion see the Draft Environmental

Impact Statements (INFISH 1995; Lowe 1993; PACFISH

1994,1995).

exists among agency plans, the general management approach is to emphasize or accommodate

sustained timber and livestock forage production

in an environmentally prudent manner while

managing and protecting other resources and

values. Timber and livestock management are

integrated and coordinated with the maintenance

or enhancement of wildlife and fish habitat, scenic

quality, recreation opportunities, and other resource values to achieve overall multiple-use goals

and objectives. On many areas, management of

other resources or values is emphasized such as

recreation, wilderness, big game and fish habitat,

or cultural resources. The current plans were

developed with little or no attempt to coordinate

management with other FS or BLM administrative units (that is, National Forest or BLM District).

Option 2

This option is designed to aggressively restore

ecosystem health through actively managing resources; the results of management can resemble

disturbance processes including insects, disease,

and fire. The option focuses on short-term (5-10

years) vegetation management to improve the

likelihood of moving toward or maintaining ecosystem processes that function properly in the long

term (50-100 years). Vegetation management is

designed to reduce risks to property, products, and

economic and social opportunities that can result

from large disturbance events. Direct involvement

with state, county, and tribal governments are to

be used in planning, decision-making, and implementation of programs.

Priority in this option is placed on forest, rangeland, and watershed health, assuming that healthy

streams, wildlife populations, and economic and

social benefits will follow. Actions taken to

achieve desired conditions are designed to produce

economic benefits whenever practical. A wide

variety of management tools are available under

this option, for example, photos 12a and 12b

show the results of prescribed fire in the dry forested vegetation types.

138

CONTINUED
Photos 12a and 12b—One management tool considered in the dry forested vegetation types

that addresses the role of fire in these ecosystems.

1 3 9

This file was created by scanning the printed publication.

Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; 

however, some errors may remain.
Option 3

This option emphasizes reducing risk to ecological

integrity and species viability by establishing a

system of reserves on FS- and BLM-administered

lands (fig. 48). Reserves would be located to

include all representative vegetation types and

large enough to contain disturbance events typical

to those vegetation types. The level of human use

and management is low within the reserves.

Ecological disturbance events are expected and

would occur naturally within the reserves. When

disturbance events (such as fire and disease) occur,

actions would be taken to reduce the likelihood of

the event extending beyond the boundary of the

reserve. Most restoration activities occur on lands

managed by the FS and BLM outside reserves,

although restoration actions could be taken within

reserves where there is a high risk for events occurring in the short term that would preclude achieving desired outcomes in the long term (for

example, maintaining habitats for endangered or

threatened species or other scarce habitats, or

controlling erosion by rehabilitating roads). Management outside the reserve boundaries includes

an emphasis on conserving remaining old forest

stands and roadless areas larger than 1,000 acres

(405 ha).

Reserves are selected for representation of vegetation and rare animal species. Although some

reserves may be designed around the needs of

single species, the intent is to conserve biodiversity

across the landscape, and to meet the needs of

species groups or communities. No commercial

timber harvest is permitted inside reserves, but

limited silvicultural activities are allowed to enhance species viability. Livestock grazing is essentially eliminated from reserves unless it is needed

to improve the long-term conditions for which the

reserve was established. Dispersed, low-impact

recreation use is allowed as long as these activities

do not affect populations of rare species or their

habitat. Management of reserves is focused on

long-term maintenance of ecological processes and

conditions with which plant and animal species

have evolved. Areas adjacent to reserves are managed as buffers to help maintain reserves by avoiding barriers or breaks in the vegetation that would

isolate the reserves. Management is allowed in

buffers, but road densities are usually low. Reserves are connected where possible by vegetative

corridors to allow interchange of animals. Management occurs within corridors also, but habitat

conditions are important considerations for management activities to allow for dispersal of animals.

Differences among options

There are several differences between current plans

(much of Option 1), restoration emphasis (Option

2), and reserve system emphasis (Option 3). Existing plans were designed primarily on the assumption that healthy ecosystem conditions

existed. Options 2 and 3 recognize that some

systems are unhealthy. Past timber and livestock

management, roading, and exclusion of fire have

altered systems. Some of this is desired by society;

some creates long-term challenges. Other events,

such as climate cycles, exotic weed expansion, and

management of other lands influence how these

Federal lands are managed, and vice versa. These

conditions are more fully considered in Options 2

and 3 than in existing plans (Option 1).

Options 2 and 3 attempt to portray more consistent interagency approaches to broad-ranging

issues, such as declines in cold water fish and

riparian habitat, concerns about late-seral forests,

and the expansion of exotic weed species as well as

incorporating the use of evolving ecosystem management principles. They also incorporate more

meaningful participation at all levels, and recognize the unique needs and contributions of tribes

and local governments.

Current plans are heavily based on even-aged

forest management. These plans emphasize commodity production with mitigation for other

resource values. Options 2 and 3 rely less on evenaged management and focus on reversing the

decline in large trees ana late-seral forest structure.

Timber harvest volume from existing plans comes

from all size classes; most volume from Options 2

140
Figure 48—Proposed reserves on FS- and BLM-administered lands in Management Option 3.

141
and 3 comes from smaller size and age classes from

either thinnings or removal of smaller trees where

the management emphasis is to attain/maintain

conditions within the forest rather than produce

timber volume. In addition, there is heavier

reliance on the use of prescribed fire to restore

patterns and structure more consistent with those

in which these systems evolved.

Under existing plans (Option 1), there is no overall cold water fish and riparian management strategy. Parts of the planning area are currently

covered by direction in the Northwest Forest Plan

and interim direction, PACFISH, INFISH, and

Eastside Screens. This has been confusing, and

makes consistent approaches to management,

inventory, monitoring, and adaptive management

difficult. Under Options 2 and 3, a more common and consistent approach to managing aquatic

and riparian resources on lands administered by

the BLM or FS would occur. In addition, the

goals and objectives for activities in riparian areas

would be to maintain or improve aquatic/riparian

functions and processes. Strategies in these options would focus on overall watershed function

by including the linkages between riparian areas

and uplands.

Emphasis for vegetative management in forestlands would be different in Options 2 and 3.

Whether considering treatments that reduce dead

and dying trees or treatments designed to maintain

the health of forests, emphasis is on ecosystem

analysis and public involvement that more closely

considers natural disturbance events and regimes

to determine desirable patterns, structure, and

composition of vegetation communities. Emphasis is on the patterns, structure, and composition

that are desirable to carry into the future. Attaining and maintaining these conditions result in

resources available for social and economic benefits to society. A key factor is establishing the

flow of resources consistent with the capabilities of

the land. Similar approaches for rangelands would

occur.

Resource-Specific Outcomes

Landscape ecology

The broadscale landscape analysis of the future

management options revealed substantial difference in outcomes in terms of disturbance processes, vegetation structure and composition,

smoke projections, insect and disease mortality,

and other elements (table 24) (see Evaluation--

Landscape). Continuing current management

(Option 1) results in higher levels of wildfire and

smoke, and increases in exotics rather than managing with a restoration emphasis (Option 2). From

a landscape perspective those elements likely to

raise concerns from a reserve emphasis (Option 3)

are the high potential for large wildfire events at

the rural/wildland interface, high levels of summer

and fall smoke, and moderate levels of wildfire.

The expansion of exotics is rated as high or moderate across the options; reducing exotic expansion

to a low level would require more aggressive approaches to containment and eradication than is

proposed in the three options studied.

The relation between disturbance events (that is,

fire, insects, and disease) and plant succession is

affected by management activities. Management

actions can either accelerate, reverse, or maintain

the status quo of succession through altering the

mix, density, composition, and pattern of vegetation within an area and by altering the disturbance

processes that effect an area. Continuing current

management (Option 1) results in disturbances

that reverse succession to a high degree, whereas

emphasis on restoration results in a high level of

disturbance that accelerates succession. The reserve emphasis (Option 3) results in disturbance

levels that are low in reversing, accelerating, and

maintaining succession.

The restoration emphasis (Option 2) shifts timing

and intensity of smoke production to a great

extent by reducing the smoke associated with

wildfire and increasing the smoke from prescribed

fire across several seasons of the year. Option 2

also maintains and restores vegetation structure

142
Table 24—Selected landscape ecology related outcomes shown by future management options.

Relationship of disturbance to succession

-Maintains vegetation structure

-Accelerates succession

-Reverses succession

Fire and smoke

-Wildfire

-Prescribed fire

-Spring smoke

-Summer smoke

-Fall smoke

-Large wildfire events in the

rural/wild land interface

Insect and disease mortality

(ratio of projected to presettlement levels of mortality]

Expansion of exotics (noxious weeds)

Vegetation structure and composition similarity with

presettlement conditions (percent of similarity of

projected to presettlement vegetation)

1

Very Low

Moderate

High

Moderate

Low

High

Moderate

Low

Moderate

) 1.85

High

12

Options

2

Moderate

High

Low

Low

High

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Low

1.7

Moderate

40

3

Low

Low

Low

Moderate

Low

Low

High

High

High

1.8

Moderate

24

and composition to more nearly approximate

presettlement conditions, and reduces the likelihood that large wildfire events might occur at the

rural/wildland interface. If managers were seeking

a more aggressive approach to reducing wildfire

concerns, change in habitat conditions, and expansion of exotics, then prioritizing restoration

activities among subbasins with focus on these

primary sources of risk would likely result in more

favorable outcomes.

Terrestrial communities, at the Basin level, change

in relatively small amounts at the 100-year

timeframe (table 25). However, spatially, the

change is more substantial. Considering smaller

geographic extents reveals change among the

terrestrial communities that are offset to some

degree at larger geographic extents. In total,

specific areas with increases are offset by other

areas with decreases. These shifts are a complex

result of disturbance activities (naturally occurring

and human induced) and ecological succession.

All of the options result in reductions in the midseral forested vegetation types, the vegetation most

susceptible to insect, disease, and fire at the current time. Late-seral forest vegetation does increase under each of the options.

143
Table 25—Terrestrial communities for the current situation and management options (year 100) for FS/BLM

administered lands.

Terrestrial communities

Early seral montane forest

Early seral lower montane forest

Early seral subalpine forest

Exotics

Late seral montane multi-layer

Late seral montane single Layer

Late seral lower montane forest multi-layer

Late seral lower montane forest single Layer

Late seral subalpine forest multi-layer

Late seral subalpine forest single Layer

Mid seral montane forest

Mid seral lower montane forest

Mid seral subalpine forest

Other*

Riparian herb

Riparian shrub

Riparian woodland

Upland herb

Upland shrub

Woodland upland

Total

Current

11.0

0.3

3.2

2.2

5.2

1.0

1.8

1.1

0.8

1.4

20.3

5.5

4.5

1.0

0.2

0.3

2.3

4.5

31.3

2.1

100.0

Option

8.8

1.4

1.7

2.9

6.4

0.5

4.0

1.1

2.7

0.6

17.8

8.5

3.8

1.0

0.1

0.3

0.9

8.2

26.3

3.1

100 0

1 Option 2

--percent

9.8

1.7

2.9

0.7

7.8

0.9

2.2

4.3

2.3

0.6

16.1

5.3

3.2

1.0

0.1

0.3

1.0

10.1

26.9

2.7

99.9

Option 3

8.8

1.3

1.8

1.6

8.4

0.9

3.4

2.8

3.0

0.5

16.5

6.0

3.7

1.0

0.1

0.3

1.1

9.7

26.7

2.4

100.0

* Other includes Rock/Barren, Alpine, Agriculture, Water and Urban

** Tables may not total 100 due to rounding.

Terrestrial ecology

Terrestrial species habitats on FS- and BLMadministered lands were assessed for each of the

management options. Assessments were based on

expert opinion concerning the likely outcome for

species and their habitats (see Evaluation—Terrestrial). The experts were asked to make judgments

about habitat conditions for historic, current, and

future timeframes. Habitat outcomes were classed

into five outcome categories with 1 being the most

broadly distributed and 5 being isolated local

populations with strong potential for extirpation

(see appendix C, table C-l, for definitions of

habitat outcomes).

Continuing current management approaches

(Option 1) generally resulted in the least favorable

outcome, followed by the reserve emphasis (Option 3) then the restoration emphasis (Option 2)

(see appendix C, table C-2 for outcomes for specific species). Habitat for nearly all species was

more favorable under the historical conditions

than either the current or projected future.

Outcome 4, where habitat conditions result in

populations that are largely isolated, when combined with Outcome 5, where strong potential for

extirpation exists, might be interpreted as identifying a set of species of potential concern. The total

number of vascular plants and vertebrate species

144
Table 26—Societal acceptability for several variables considered important by the public

compared for each management option.

analyzed with projected outcomes of 4 and 5

within eastern Oregon and Washington are 59, 4l,

and 45 for Options 1, 2, and 3 respectively, and

for the Upper Columbia River Basin are 46, 32,

and 33 (see appendix D for lists of species with

projected and current outcomes of 4 and 5).

The grizzly bear and sharp-tailed grouse showed

the most dramatic decline in habitat (increases in

outcome scores) between historic and projected

futures (Evaluation--Terrestrial). For these two

species Option 1 is projected to have a less favorable rating for sharp-tail, but the other options

provide similar outcomes; the grizzly bear shows

similar responses across all options. The implications are that the options provided in this analysis

did not address all the risks associated with these

species. This is a complex situation in which some

of the risks occur at fine scale where the management options provided little specific description of

management direction, some of the risks are associated with factors not related to FS and BLM

management, and some of the risks are from

severely limited habitat that might not respond to

new management emphasis on FS- and BLMadministered lands alone.

Social

Projections of social consequences and outcomes

associated with the management options were

developed primarily through a series of panels

involving a wide array of publics, elected officials,

and tribal members (Evaluation—Social). These

panels were particularly helpful in narrowing the

scope of concerns and gaining insight into perceptions and values held by participants.

From a social perspective the five main areas of

concern were (1) predictability in commodity

outputs and outcomes from the Federal lands;

(2) the publics access to the decision-making

processes; (3) primary or secondary effects that

might occur on private lands; (4) the effects on

communities and the quality of life; and, (5) the

effects on American Indian tribes (table 26).

Options 1 and 3 generally were predicted to be

less acceptable, than Option 2.

An additional area of strong interest within the

Basin is the scenic quality, especially associated

with FS- and BLM-administered lands. Table 27

shows 90 percent of the FS and BLM lands are

rated as having high scenic integrity in the current

situation. Options 2 and 3 provide a slight increase in area rated as high scenic integrity for the

first decade.

145

Variable

Prod ict ability

Access to decision making

Acceptability of effects on private land

Acceptability of effects on communities and quality of life

Acceptability of effects on American Indian Tribal interests

+ = Effects are more likely to be socially acceptable.

- = Effects are less likely to be socially acceptable.

1

-

-

-

-

-

Options

2

+

+

+

+

+

3

-

-

-

-

+
Table 27—Scenic integrity classes for the current situation and management options

(year 10) for FS- and BLM-administered lands.

Scenic integrity classes

Very high scenic integrity

High scenic integrity

Moderately high scenic integrity

Moderately low scenic integrity

Low scenic integrity

Total

Current Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

percent

32

26

32

8

1

100

33

26

31

9

1

100

33

30

30

6

1

100

34

32

28

6

1

100

Note: May not sum to 100 due to rounding.

There is considerable interest on the public's part

in road access. Each option considered a different

level of emphasis on road closure and obliteration.

At the 100-year timeframe, FS and BLM lands

would move to a higher percentage of moderate

road densities (table 28) by shifting away from

higher road densities. Future strategies for road

management also were oriented toward achieving

moderate road densities. In areas projected to

have increases in road densities, the increases were

not projected to exceed moderate.

Aquatic ecology

The management options are compared relative to

their effectiveness in maintaining and protecting

aquatic ecosystem function, structure, and processes, and to their expected effects on the effective

distribution and abundance of habitat with reference to populations of 22 native fish species and

subspecies (Evaluation—Aquatics). Specific emphasis is placed on protection, maintenance, and

restoration of aquatic and riparian habitats offered

by each alternative.

The evaluations center on core areas, where there

are concentrations of strong populations and the

species is well distributed among adjacent watersheds, and fringe areas, where a relatively few

occupied watersheds are isolated and fragmented

from the larger portions of the species range.

The species focus is primarily on seven key salmonids that are viewed as important indicators of

aquatic integrity (table 29) (Evaluation—Aquatics).

Fifteen endemic, narrowly distributed species were

also evaluated against the management options.

Option 1 was found deficient in conserving core

strongholds and fringe distributions into the

future. The result was a projection for all key

salmonids and 14 of the endemic species that

further declines would not be halted. Option 3

appears to provide the most favorable outcome

associated with the key salmonids and the narrow

endemics. This is largely a result of declining

negative affects due to road reductions and reduced grazing, harvest and other disturbances in

the large reserve areas. The options result in

varying levels of effectiveness in providing for

ecological functions and processes (table 30).

Each option provided a different mix of protection

and management processes related to aquatic/

riparian systems. The restoration emphasis (Option 2) and reserve emphasis (Option 3) are generally effective at maintaining and protecting

riparian functions; Option 2 has the added benefit, as viewed from a managers perspective, of

increased flexibility.

146
Table 28—Predicted road density classes for the current situation and management options

(year 100) for FS- and BLM-administered lands.

Road density classes

None

Very low / low

Moderate

High /extremely high

Total

Current Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

------------------------------percent-----------------------------

33

19

23

26

100

29

18

27

26

100

32

17

49

2

100

33

19

45

4

100

Note: May not sum to 1 00 due to rounding.

Table 29—Number of key salmonids or endemic rare or sensitive fish species for which the management options

would conserve strong populations, prevent further declines or rebuild depressed populations.

Number of key salmonid species

and rare and sensitive fishes

given sufficient protection to:

6 Key Salmonid Species1

Conserve Strong Populations

Prevent Declines

Rebuild Depressed Populations

15 Rare and Sensitive Species2

Prevent Declines

Y

0

0

0

1

Option

1

N Uncertain

14

0

0

0

0

Y

6

1

6

—y

Option

2

N Uncertain

0

1

0

1

0

4

0

7

Y

6

2

6

9

Option

3

N Uncertain

0

1

0

0

0

3

0

6

1 The seven key salmonid species include bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, redband trout, steelhead, stream-type chinook, and ocean-type chinook. Ocean-type chinook are minimally impacted by FS/BLM land and no core strongholds exist on FS/BLM administered land. They are, therefore, not included in this summary.

2 Three of the eighteen rare and sensitive fishes addressed in the evaluation were not included in this summary because one species is protected under ESA Section 7 regardless of alternative, and two species have insufficient information to conduct an analysis. The fifteen endemic fish species included are Pacific lamprey, Pit-Klamath Brook lamprey, Lahontan cutthroat trout, pygmy whitefish, shortnose sucker, Lost River sucker, Klamath largescale sucker, slender sculpin, Goose Lake sucker, Wood River Sculpin, Wood River brideelip sucker, Malheur sculpin, torrent sculpin, shorthead sculpin, and margined sculpin. Also of note, pygmy whitefish are large Take dwelling fish which are minimally impacted by any alternative.

147

6

6

6
Economics

In general the Basin is experiencing growth and

robust economies (Evaluation—Economics). This

varies by county, community, and geographic area.

The options were evaluated within the context of

these current economic conditions. The FS- and

BLM-administered lands within the Basin are

valued for more than their ability to provide traditional commodities. They are a source of increasing recreation, increasing special forest products,

and source of cultural and spiritual significance.

The social evaluation of options indicated a declining acceptance of Option 1, inferring negative

outcomes on the totality of values associated with

that option. This is consistent with the idea that

public values and perceptions are shifting. Options 2 and 3, though they provide lower levels of

commodity production (table 31) may have higher

combined value (by considering the entire basket

of goods and services provided by the options).

Recreation use is highly valued within the Basin,

but differences across the options appear to be

offsetting. For example, Option 3 may be providing more semi-primitive/primitive experiences that

offset declines in roaded recreation.

Table 30— Selected elements relating the aquatic conservation strategies of each option to their effectiveness in

maintaining and protecting aquatic ecosystem function.

Element

Will riparian protection maintain ecological function and process?

Is ecosystem analysis required for specifically identified watersheds?

Can standards and guidelines be modified after ecosystem analysis?

Relative benefits of the intensity of riparian and watershed restoration

1

No

No

No

Low

Options

2

Yes

Yes

YeS

High

3

Yes

Yes

No

Low

Table 31— Selected economic measures for each of the management options.

Economic Measures

Timber outputs (million cubic feet)

Range outputs (thousands AUMs)

Economic resiliency (weighted by population in counties)

Timber values (Millions of dollars)

Range (Millions of dollars)

Recreation Use (Millions of dollars)

Existence of unroaded (Millions of dollars)

1

793

2.59

100

1,061

24

3,433

3,854

Options

2

344

2.55

100.4

457

24

3,565

3,861

3

316

1.43

99.5

306

13

3,565

3,861

148
Methods for Assessing

Future Integrity

Trends in ecological integrity

Trends in ecological integrity were estimated for

each of the options (see the Evaluation). The SIT

developed models that simulated the implementation of each option. The simulation models consisted of a mix of potential activities (for example,

harvest, prescribed fire, and thinning) and projected disturbances (for example, wildfire) that

resulted in changes in succession for vegetation

within the model. Projections were also made to

estimate the potential changes in road densities

that would result from the implementation of each

management option.

We examined the projections we had available

through the evaluation of the management options to determine which indicators might provide

the most universal predictors of trends in integrity.

We chose three primary indicators each having

equal weight in contributing to composite ecological integrity trends: (1) forest and rangeland vegetation (as integrated indicators of such elements

as disturbance, succession, management activities,

exotics, and habitat); (2) riparian management (as

an indicator of such elements as aquatic environment, riparian communities, connectivity of

riparian and aquatic ecosystems across the FS- and

BLM-administered landscapes, fragmentation, and

habitats); and, (3) road density changes (as indicators of such elements as change in erosion, sediment, terrestrial habitat trajectories, habitat

fragmentation, and exotic introductions). Each

indicator was assigned a value indicating its contribution to composite integrity (-1, 0, +1). The

trend was projected as the simple sum of the three

indicators (the data are shown in appendix B, table

B-3). Trends were estimated for each subbasin

across each management option.

Summing across all the FS and BLM lands within

the Basin shows that the options provide very

different outcomes in composite ecological integrity trends (figs. 49, 50, and 51). Continuing

current management approaches (Option 1)

results in declining trends in integrity on 95 percent of the FS- and BLM-administered land (fig.

52). If the goal were to manage for stable or

improving trends in ecological integrity, the restoration emphasis (Option 2) meets this goal for all

FS- or BLM-administered lands while the reserve

emphasis (Option 3) meets the goal for 95 percent

of the area. Future management strategies that

take a landscape approach and emphasize ecosystem processes and functions are more effective in

improving integrity in the future than are strategies that emphasize stand-level treatments and

commodity production. In the restoration emphasis (Option 2), substantial forested area is

shown as stable, a much improved future projection than the declining trends projected for continuing the current management approaches.

Changing the management approaches in the

restoration emphasis (Option 2) to result in more

area with improving trends (rather than the stable

trends as projected) involves a complex set of

interactions that must be considered. A stronger

emphasis on management of those elements

represented by the proxy of changes in road density would tend to shift toward improving trends,

yet it complicates the ability to effectively manage

the vegetation (for example, access to treat overstocked stands, increase the mosaic patterns on the

landscape, and suppress wildfire in highly fragmented watersheds of high importance to aquatic

systems). Increasing the treatments (for example,

prescribed burning, thinning, and harvest) associated with the areas most highly susceptible to

insect, disease, and fire might contribute to improving trends from the vegetation management

perspective, yet create potential risk to aquatic

resources. Addressing these issues requires careful

consideration, prioritization of risks, and identification of those areas that will respond most effectively to treatment.

The rangeland situation also involves a complex

set of interactions that need to be considered in

attempting to move to higher levels of integrity.

Exotic weed expansion, trends in riparian condi149
Figure 49—Long-term trends in ecological integrity for FS- and BLM-administered lands: Management Option 1.

150 
Figure 50— long-term trends in ecological integrity for FS- and BM-administered lands: Management Option 2.

151
Figiure 51— Long-term trends in ecological integrity for FS- and BLM-administered lands: Management Optio 3.

152
tions, changes in fire regimes, and encroaching

woody species are primary concerns in these vegetation types. Rangeland areas have been improving over the last several decades, but these

concerns remain potential impediments to improving ecological integrity. Rangeland conditions

may not be as responsive as forested areas to the

aquatic conservation strategies. Prioritizing areas

for new grazing strategies, integrated weed management, restoration treatments, prescribed fire,

and reductions in woody species encroachment

will likely yield the greatest potential to improve

trends in ecological integrity.

Population density

The only component of social and economic

resiliency that we have any ability to project is

population density. But we can use population

density as a proxy for social and economic resiliency to make some general assessments about

resiliency trends. Economic resiliency, lifestyle

diversity, and population density vary directly with

each other. That is, these factors seem to be collinear, which suggests that any one of these three

factors can be used as a proxy for the others.

As of 1994, the population of the Basin was 3.1

million. Population projections suggest that the

Basins 100 counties will have 6.0 million people by

2040 (McCool and Haynes 1996). This is a growth

rate higher than the population growth rate for the

United States as a whole. Given these projections,

the population density ratings for 61 counties remain

unchanged. The remaining 39 counties shift to a

higher category of population density. Figure 53

illustrates these trends in terms of the distribution of

population density categories by population and by

area. By the year 2040, nearly 80 percent of the

population (up from 60% currently) will live in

relatively urbanized environments. The proportion

of the people living in the most rural parts of the

Basin will decline by 50 percent. The area in the

lowest population density category will change from

68 to 45 percent of the Basin.

153

Figure 52—Trends in composite ecological integrity projected by Management Option.
Because of the projected increase in Basin population, there will be more people in the high-density

counties. This is particularly true in "recreation"

counties, which are projected to attract a disproportionate number of immigrants (McCool and

Haynes 1996). In terms of socioeconomic resiliency, this means a continued shift toward higher

socioeconomic resiliency throughout the Basin,

with the exception of counties with low population density that are not recreation counties or

that have low economic resiliency. None of the

100 counties are projected to lose population

between 1995 and 2045, although half a dozen

will have only minor increases. As other areas

become more densely populated, these half-dozen

will be relatively more isolated and have difficulty

attracting infrastructure and investments. On the

other hand, they will be more apparent as "refuges" for people seeking solitude.

Predicting trends for social and economic resiliency is difficult because of the inherit uncertainty

in social systems (because of both the speed at

which they change and the uncertainties inherit in

many of the underlying assumptions). The trends

in economic resiliency for the first decade are

shown in figure 54 for two of the three management options. Comparing figures 52 and 54 can

be deceptive. Figure 52 illustrates changes in

ecological integrity with regard to changes in forest

and range ecosystems with little interaction with

prospective human impacts on either management

or changes in the mix of ecosystem goods, services,

and conditions. Figure 54 speaks to the entire

economic system within the Basin. As such, it

includes goods, services, and conditions from both

the forest and range ecosystems as well as the other

parts of the Basin. It also only speaks to the conditions in the first decade of the planning period

(where the trends in ecological integrity speak to

changes expected in the next 100 years).

In the long term, population changes are a proxy

for expected economic changes in the Basin (in

Component Assessment— Economics there are projections of economic activity in the Basin for some

of the major resources). The basic population

shifts suggest that over the next 50 years, the Basin

154

Figure 53—Distribution of population density categories by area and population of 1994 and 2040.
will come to look like much of the West, in that

an increasing proportion of the population will

live in urban settings. Photo 13 shows a community in a low economic resiliency area where the

resiliency is not expected to change. There will

still be 45 percent of the Basin's area that remains

in the lowest population class that we call "frontier" counties. Those counties will probably still

generate concerns about their ability to provide

social services without help from state and Federal

governments, and we would expect that concerns

about social resiliency would be most pronounced

in them.

There is often the concern of the link between

human conditions (and well-being) and the condition of the underlying ecosystems. When looking

at figure 52, some may draw the conclusion that

we have impoverished ourselves and that ecosystem and human community sustainability is

imperiled. Such a view at the Columbia River

Basin level leads to erroneous conclusions. First

the forest and range ecosystems do not, in themselves, provide the economic foundations of the

Basin. Second, many of the ecosystems have been

modified by human action to increase their production of native (for example, timber and grass)

or exotic (for example, wheat or cattle) crops or

animals.

Risks to ecological integrity and

people and their assets

We assessed future risk to ecological integrity in

relation to people (growth in rural-urban areas and

use patterns) and risk to people and their assets in

relation to wildland areas (see Evaluation). The

underlying assumption is that risk to ecological

integrity is generally higher in proximity to densely

populated areas, and risk to people and their assets is

generally higher in close proximity to wildland areas,

than to agricultural or urban areas. Natural or

human-induced events and animal populations

occurring within wildland areas might prove risky to

people, homes, and other assets people value. Those

risks are related to wildland areas and conditions

associated with wildland areas. The integrity of

ecosystems is also influenced by the presence of

people and their activities.

155

Figure 54—Trends in economic resiliency by area for Management Options 2 and 3.
Photo 13—Small rural communities have traditionally been closely linked to the flow of

commodities from FS- and BLM-administered lands.

Similar to the current integrity section, societal

risk to ecological integrity and risk to human

assets from wildland was estimated using a set of

rules that related population density to forest,

non-forest, and agricultural wildland vegetation

groups. This relation assumes a generally higher

risk associated with forested vegetation groups

than with nonforested vegetation types and higher

risk with increasing population densities. It also

generally assumes that the more wild the area the

higher the risk; while at the same time, the more

human populations increase in close proximity to

wildland areas the greater the risk.

While population and associated risks are projected to increase throughout the Basin, by 2040

the most rapid growth is concentrated in five

areas. Ten counties just east of the crest of the

Cascades make up the first area. This area contains one metro county (Yakima, Washington) and

several rapidly growing recreation counties. Six

counties along the Interstate 90 corridor (from

Spokane, Washington to Missoula, Montana)

make up the second area. Two counties in this

corridor (Shoshone and Mineral, Montana) are

largely Federal, with growth concentrated on a

relatively small private land base. Five counties at

the western edge of Yellowstone National Park

make up the third area. The six counties along

Interstate 84 from Ontario, Oregon, to Twin Falls,

Idaho, make up the fourth area. This area is the

most populated part of the whole Basin having

two metro counties and a large private land base.

The three counties around Tri-Cities, Washington,

make up the fifth area. Two of these counties

(Franklin and Benton, Washington) are metro

counties. Of the five areas, this area has the smallest amount of Federal land.

Several of the most populated counties (Missoula,

Montana; Ada and Canyon, Idaho; and Yakima,

Washington) are in close proximity to FS- and

BLM-administered lands and therefore are anticipated to have a greater risk associated with the

156
interface of wildlands than Spokane or Tri-Cities,

Washington. Spokane has a substantial wildland

interface, but the risks are mostly associated with

private land. Tri-Cities is a mixture of private

wildland and agricultural interfaces. Where these

metro areas are in close proximity to high-integrity

wildlands, risks to the maintenance or improvement of integrity are high. Likewise these metro

areas pose higher risk to areas of high integrity

than to areas of low integrity, suggesting additional

emphasis to manage the risks to attain and maintain high ecological integrity.

The trends in risks to human assets and ecological

integrity are summarized for the three EIS options

as follows:

Options

Decreasing risks

Stable risks

Increasing risks

1 2 3

0

32

68

35

43

22

29

43

28

As shown in this tabulation, risks to the ecosystem

can be managed, and proactive management

(Option 2) can generally lower the risks more than

a passive approach (Option 3). The location of

these trends in risks are shown in figures 55, 56,

and 57 for the three options.

There is no difference between the options for the

Interstate 90 (Spokane, Washington-Missoula,

Montana) or Interstate 84 (Ontario, OregonTwin Falls, Idaho) corridors. Options 2 and 3 do

make a difference by lowering the risks in the east

Cascades and in the area west of Yellowstone

National Park. Risks to ecological integrity in the

Tri-Cities area with its large private land base are

unaffected by the various FS and BLM futures. In

the east Cascades there are two areas (west of

Yakima, Washington and east of Bend, Oregon)

where growing human populations overwhelm the

management attempts to lower risks within the

options.

There are three additional geographic regions

where different land management approaches are

unable to alter the risks to ecosystems and where

increasing human populations are not the source

of increased risks. These are the area east of

Missoula, Montana, along the continental divide,

the area from Ontario, Oregon, to Baker City,

Oregon (along Interstate Highway 84), and the

area further east of Bend, Oregon. In these areas

the various management actions envisioned in the

options are unable to reverse the increasing trends

in ecological and human risks.

Risks to people and their assets from wildland

areas and risks to ecological integrity are not

restricted to metropolitan areas. Much of the

Basin is expected to remain rural where risks are

associated with residents and primitive areas where

risks are associated with visitors. Local publics will

be expected to continue to express preferences for

stability in scenery and will lobby to have projects

put in someone else's backyard. Recreation use is

expected to increase sharply leading to greater

conflicts between recreation use and land management actions including road closures. The proportion of the Basin that is sparsely populated and

where Federal agencies are a visible part of the

communities is projected to change very little and

will continue to place demands on Federal resources to be part of their community infrastructures. This will be the case especially in the area of

risk management where these counties have fewer

resources to address risks or assist in control of

natural events such as fire, flood, and insect outbreaks than exist in the more populated areas.

Discussion of Management

Options and Ecosystem

Integrity

At the beginning of Chapter 4, three questions

were posed to help the development of management direction. The first question was answered

in Chapter 4. The last two questions combine

inferences drawn from material in both Chapters 4

and 5.

157
Figure 55—Long-term trends in risk of human ecological interaction BLM-administered lands only: Management Option 1.

158

CONTINUED
Figure 56—Long-term trends in risk of human ecological interaction BLM-administered lands only: Management Option 2.

1 5 9

This file was created by scanning the printed publication.

Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; 

however, some errors may remain.
Figure 57—Long-term trends in risk of human ecological interaction BLM-administered lands only: Management Option 3.

160
Th

e second question posed at the beginning of

Chapter 4 asked where were the opportunities to

improve (or restore) ecological integrity in the

Basin? In general the greatest opportunities for

restoration are in those areas with low and moder-

ate ecological integrity. However, in terms of

Federal agencies being able to assist in large-scale

restoration, substantial opportunity exists in the

dry and moist forest clusters and the rangeland

clusters having low ecological integrity. There are

also significant human populations in these same

areas who could directly benefit from improved

ecological conditions. For Federal lands, these

areas will pose significant challenges to land man-

agement and will require extensive stakeholder

involvement. Another opportunity to improve

ecological integrity is in areas associated with

moderate integrity that are positioned between

large blocks of high integrity. They represent areas

where terrestrial and aquatic systems can be con-

nected. Examples include the Blackfoot and

Bitterroot areas of western Montana.

The third question asked where there are opportu-

nities to produce commodities with low risk to

ecological integrity. There are two types of an-

swers. First, timber and range outputs can con-

centrate in those areas of moderate integrity with

low fire risk (for example, the moist forest and

range grouping). The second answer is to focus

commodity production in those areas that have

low or moderate integrity but are candidates for

restoration. In these areas there are low down-side

risks both from fire and hydrologic problems. In

addition, almost all of the isolated resource-depen-

dent communities are in these areas, and main-

taining commodity flows would have a positive

effect on community resiliency.

161
CHAPTER 6

POLICY QUESTIONS,

EFFECTS OF SPECIFIC

POLICY ACTIONS, AND

PROCESS QUESTIONS

The Science Integration Team derived, and the

Executive Steering Committee approved, eleven

policy questions from the Charter. They also

sought to determine the effects of the Northwest

Forest Plan, and the effects on FS- and BLMadministered land of implementing the PACFISH

strategy. Two broad process questions were also

identified.

Policy Questions

1. What are the effects of current and

potential FS and BLM land allocations

on ecologic, economic, and social systems

in the Basin?

Current land allocations result in the simplification of landscape mosaics and ecological conditions. This is true whether the allocation is for

commodity or amenity outputs (see discussion of

continuation of current management and reserve

area emphasis management options). Allocations

tend to emphasize one resource goal (such as

timber harvests) that is sometimes constrained by

competing resource goals (such as fish and wildlife). In contrast, ecosystem management may

emphasize multiple goals under a flexible, adaptive

management. These goals would be accomplished

within the biophysical capabilities of the ecosystem by seeking outcomes related to landscape

processes balanced over large spatial and temporal

scales. Strict adherence to land allocations does

not allow the flexibility to respond to changing

environmental conditions.

Most past land allocations have favored either

commodity production or wilderness set-asides.

These aimed either at the predictability of economic or social outputs over short timeframes and

localized areas or the resolution of specific wilderness issues. Predictability of economic and social

outputs may temporarily be reduced or changed

during the short-term transition between the

existing situation and the more flexible approach,

until management plans can be established for the

new approach. The long-term economic outputs

could be predicted, but outputs may take a different form (for example, different mix of size and

species of trees harvested).

The implementation of ecosystem management

builds on the legacies of past management (for

example, roads and past harvesting) and tradeoffs

in production of ecological, economic, and social

outputs. For example, roads may be detrimental

to some aquatic systems, but enable some types of

economic, cultural practices, and recreation activities to take place. Past cutting practices and fires

also created some desirable ecological attributes or

patterns in our current landscapes.

2. What are the ecological, economic, and

social system outcomes associated with

current (defined as the early 1990s) FS and

BLM levels of activities?

Relative to historic practices, current management

practices have focused on minimizing and mitigating disruptions to aquatic environments. How163
ever, the net gain in aquatic habitat improvements

has been slow and many fragmented and isolated

habitats remain. This has resulted in continuation

of local extirpations even without any additional

habitat loss. Though riparian systems are beginning to recover, upland forest areas are currently at

greater risk from certain diseases, insects, and

catastrophic fires, owing to fire suppression and

exclusion. Upland range areas have shown improvement over the past forty years, but the encroachment of exotic plants, especially legally

declared noxious weeds, and grazing strategies that

are inconsistent with ecological processes continue

to be important problems.

A focus on ecological outcomes likely will have

mixed effects on economic and social resiliency.

There may be a short-term decline in traditional

commodities, such as timber, but in the longterm, commodity production could stabilize.

Under current management, social resiliency is

expected to be lower than average in the more arid

portions of the Basin, and higher than average in

forested areas with higher productivity. Much of

these findings are tied to water. Water is a common link to both social and biophysical resilience.

3. What is required to maintain long-term

productivity (in terms of various systems)?

Management practices designed to sustain longterm productivity need to incorporate the full

complement of ecological processes within the

context of the biophysical conditions. In addition

to understanding the biophysical conditions,

managers will commonly need to react to

unpredicted, unalterable, environmental conditions that are outside the limitations of the system

by adjusting management practices. Managers

will have to address conditions such as introduction of exotic biota, erosion of soil, concentration

of toxic pollutants, loss of habitats to urban and

agricultural development, and global climate

change.

Indicators of long-term productivity can typically be

measured from above- and below-ground structural

components and patterns. However, the basic ecological processes that drive productivity are the

critical baseline. There are some general management recommendations that when followed will

reduce risk of loss of long-term productivity.

To protect soil productivity, managers can conserve surface organic matter by minimizing roads

in the moderate-to-high-risk areas for erosion,

sediment transport, and landslides. Managers can

design roads to better fit the land surface, to avoid

cut slopes that bring subsoil water flow to the

surface, and locate them in lower-risk areas. In

particular, roads in flood plains constrain channels

and increase rates of flow. Where possible, roads

could be removed from flood plains or other areas

subject to events that may affect hydrologic flows,

erosion, or sedimentation. Maintaining bank

cover in riparian areas, and emphasizing woody

cover would help, as would managing to minimize

soil disturbance activities in areas susceptible to

establishment of exotic plant species. These areas

are typically in the dry forest, shrub, and grass

potential vegetation groups. Where feasible, there

is also the opportunity to manage to reduce risk of

introduction of exotics and contain their spread.

Management practices can be designed to retain

diversity of vegetation and soil patterns and structural components. Special emphasis can be placed

on the cycling of the dead component of vegetation. Management practices can include provisions to maintain dead standing and down

vegetation material, and litter.

Management practices can be designed to maintain long-term water retention characteristics of

the landscape, especially in wetlands. This will

improve aquifer characteristics, will provide a

buffer for riparian conditions, and provide habitat

for wildlife. Vegetation herbivory can be managed

to conserve vegetation cover and resiliency of the

system to drought.

Human populations in the Basin are increasing,

which, in turn, results in increases in associated

pressures on the land. Managers can work with

stakeholders and scientists to continually share

new understandings and views of long-term productivity.

164
4. What can the FS and BLM do to mimic

disturbance elements on the landscape?

The FS and BLM can mimic natural disturbances,

but it is essential for managers to consider that

current conditions may be considerably different

than those conditions that occurred historically.

For example, reintroduction of native processes

such as fire without modification of structural

patterns, fuel loading, and spatial distributions can

produce unpredictable and undesirable effects.

Managers could use strategies of livestock grazing

in forests and woodlands that would result in the

accumulation of understory fine vegetation. This

would provide fuel for prescribed fires that can be

useful in maintaining conditions consistent with

long-term disturbance processes.

In planning vegetation management, it is important to recognize that native disturbances and

mechanical treatments do not necessarily create

the same conditions. Oftentimes the structure can

be replicated with a mechanical process. The

results may be a community that is very different

or generally equivalent to the native system. This

is highly dependent on the design of the mechanical disturbance process. When possible, management treatments would be designed to produce a

mosaic of both live and dead vegetation structures

in a more complex array of patterns than exists

today. Livestock grazing and other herbivory can

be managed to be more consistent with those

patterns and structures that represent long-term

disturbance processes.

In aquatic systems there is less known about how

to mimic disturbance to create appropriate structures and composition of components. Because of

the high rates of energy concentration in the

aquatic system, and the cumulative nature of

smaller drainages to larger drainages, many aquatic

restoration or development projects fail. This

often occurs because of failure to consider structure placement in the context of the hydrologic

and geomorphic conditions.

Managers need to apply disturbance processes

appropriately through time and in space. Management activities that truncate the successional

sequences can cause significant negative impacts to

ecological processes. Seeding of perennial exotic

grasses following wildfire commonly replaces the

early-seral native shrub and/or herb stage. These

seed mixes can contain exotic weed seeds. Because

of the risks of exotics, seeding of cover to reduce

erosion would focus mostly on areas where the

seed bank in the surface soil has been lost. Where

seeding is deemed necessary and appropriate,

seeding with annuals that do not produce fertile

seed is an option. Typical patch sizes and scheduling of harvest continually through time in the

same watershed, often do not represent the size

and interval of more natural disturbance events.

Containment of livestock in specific pastures

usually does not represent the seasonal variation of

ranges that were available to native herbivores.

5. What is required to maintain sustainable

and/or harvestable and/or minimum viable

population levels?

The ultimate concern and requirement for species

are long-term persistence, assessed and provided

within the context of ecosystems. A population

with a high level of viability is one with a high

likelihood of continued existence throughout its

range (on at least Federal lands within the Basin)

over the long term, for example the next 100

years. In contrast, a harvestable population is one

that is sustainable and that can also provide a

portion for hunting or gathering uses. To reach

this level requires understanding the long-term

and off-site effects of our short-term and on-site

actions, as affecting the kinds and distributions of

habitats, environments, and populations. Such a

viable population is sustainable, and can be said to

have a high likelihood of long-term persistence.

The concept of "minimum" viable populations

does not apply to our assessment and we strongly

advocate not using the term in management direc165
tion. Current scientific literature largely discounts

the use of the concept because there simply is no

one threshold population size that just barely

assures long-term viability and below which the

population is doomed. Instead, the focus should

be on ensuring adequate distribution and abundance of environments and of individuals within

and among populations to assure sustainable levels

and, for some species, harvest use.

Species that might need individual attention for

viability management include those species that

are threatened, endangered, candidate, or rare and

potential candidates. Additionally, a quick,

simple, and inexpensive monitoring system can be

instituted to ensure that currently secure populations do not become viability concerns in the

future; the best application of population viability

assessments is to prevent future listings of species.

Then, the rest of the species can be addressed in

broader guidelines for maintaining biodiversity,

ecosystem processes, and species ecological functions, in pan by addressing species in ecological

functional and community groups. In this way,

critical species-specific issues and broader ecosystem management guidelines combine to ensure

full conservation of both species and systems in

one coherent approach.

Maintaining persistent populations requires welldistributed, well-connected, persistent high-quality habitat, and control of factors directly affecting

mortality of individuals, such as harvesting, pollution, and competition or predation with domestic

or introduced species. Well-distributed habitat

will reduce the probability that disturbance or

habitat loss, and consequent extirpation of the

local population in any one area, will adversely

affect overall population persistence. Connecting

habitat patches with corridors or dispersal habitat,

or eliminating barriers (such as roads and dams)

will ensure that all parts of the regional population

interact by allowing individuals to move between

patches of habitat. That will allow for recovery of

populations in areas that have been depleted by

human or natural causes. Connectivity will also

ensure adequate genetic interchange among segments of the population, which will promote

vigorous populations with few genetic defects or

reduced productivity resulting from inbreeding.

Good connectivity generally is a goal, but in some

cases persistence may be enhanced by restricting or

controlling habitat connectivity where contagious

disease or disturbances (such as crown fires) might

be problems.

Not all species are naturally capable of persisting

over the long-term; some are naturally scarce and

rare. The best attainable goal for such species

would be to maintain or restore their key environments and habitats and watch those habitats or

populations for downward trends. However, if a

species has become scarce because of human activities, much can likely be done to restore viability to

higher levels.

All habitat is not created equal and the mere

presence of individuals in a particular cover type

or structural stage does not signal high-quality

habitat. High-quality habitat consistently enables

production and recruitment of young into the

population, for example, where births equal or

exceed deaths. Some habitats appear to be important, but are really "sinks" in the sense that those

populations are not viable because mortality is

higher than births. To persist, populations in sink

patches need to be replenished from the highquality "source" habitats. Habitat persistence

could be assured by planning for habitat loss from

disturbance, succession, or human encroachment

and for its replacement through succession or

active management.

Population viability can be managed by manipulating environments, habitats, other species, or

sundry factors affecting demographic or genetic

conditions and trends of the species of interest.

Factors affecting population viability such as

mortality differ among species. Mortality associated with human infrastructure and activities

(such as roads, dams, irrigation systems, industrial

pollution, residential and agricultural non-point

pollution, and agricultural practices) can have

large effects on some populations. Competition

166
with domestic or feral livestock or introduced

species can also lead to problems of habitat degradation or displacement of some organisms. Predation by domestic animals (dogs and cats) or

introduced species can also be serious problems.

For anadromous fish on-site and off-site (for

example, ocean fishing, migratory species) harvest

levels, stocking targets for some native and nonnative species, and management of harvest (season,

bag limits, methods) are critical issues for cooperation between land managers, state and tribal

governments, and the public.

Finally, there needs to be the social will to maintain sustainable populations. Reasons for maintaining sustainable populations might be

economic, social, religious, cultural, ethical, to

provide for ecological services or ecological integrity, or to meet tribal treaty mandates. Cooperation among Federal, state, tribal, private, and

public interest groups will be critical for achieving

sustainable and harvestable populations.

6. What is required to maintain and restore

biological diversity (biodiversity)?

The first step is insuring we have societal acceptance that biological diversity is a goal. If it is a

goal, then maintaining and restoring biodiversity

will require attending to several conditions in the

Basin, including the following principal conditions:

• protecting or restoring seriously degraded and

rare ecological communities,

• alignment of natural areas to represent ecosystems and to provide for rare and endemic species,

• conserving centers of species rarity, endemism,

and richness,

• providing for a full array of historic vegetation

conditions,

• providing the full array of key species ecological

functions in an area,

• protecting type localities for rare plants,

• providing for full species' ranges, including

disjunct populations, range margins, and endemic subspecies,

• maintaining soil structure and chemistry, and

avoiding erosion,

• eradicating exotics or preventing further spread,

• and, modifying livestock-grazing strategies in

some areas, particularly riparian areas,

To achieve these conditions, some high-quality

environments or habitats need to be well-distributed, well-connected, and persistent, where biophysical conditions allow. Other environments or

habitats associated with high biodiversity of

unique or endemic plants and animals may be

scarce and scattered; simple protection of such

unique, sensitive sites (such as vernal pools) also

may be needed.

Also, biodiversity can be in part maintained by

providing for ecological processes. In the case of

white pine blister rust and other exotic pathogens

or insects, deployment of genetically resistant

stock may be needed. In some instances, undesirable exotic species are now part of these ecosystems and cannot feasibly be eradicated or

controlled with existing technology. Other exotic

species have been deliberately introduced for

purposes of biological control, erosion control,

forage, productivity, and other purposes; they have

become an inextricable part of the "naturalized"

biodiversity of the area, but whether they are now

a desirable component of biodiversity is a societal

decision.

7. What is the effect of ecosystem

management on major social issues and the

maintenance of rural communities and

economies?

167
Community and economic resilience—FS

and BLM personnel are members of many rural

communities, but the agencies are relatively minor

players in fostering economic growth. Range and

ranching communities are typically less resilient

than those associated with forest products and

logging. Some isolated communities or interests

may be negatively affected by changes in conditions of the Basin brought on by new management

strategies. If the desire is to alleviate these impacts, effective transition strategies could be designed and implemented.

Competing demands—Ecosystem management

only partially reduces conflicts between competing

uses of Federal lands. It may reduce conflicts

between timber harvest and recreation uses by

modifying harvesting techniques to allow harvest

but reduce aesthetic impacts. Other conflicts such

as between cross-country skiers and snowmobilers

or between tribal and commercial gathering of

mushrooms and huckleberries are not measurably

affected. All conflicts will increase in the future

with population growth.

Fire hazards in rural- and urban-forest

zones—Residential development adjacent to

Federal lands will continue, placing more people

and property at risk from wildfires. Ecosystem

management, appropriately targeted to these areas,

can reduce these risks; ecosystem management

cannot eliminate these risks.

Healthy ecosystems—Fire, flood, disease, decay,

and production of commodities are all part of

healthy ecosystems. Overall, ecosystem management can improve ecosystem health, although

particular stands or landscapes may not appear

attractive to some members of the public. Education about and commitment to the objectives of

ecosystem management and what levels of fire,

disease, and decay are within the parameters of

ecosystem health are key to public acceptance.

Jobs—Ecosystem management will have a varied

impact on the numbers of jobs in the Basin.

When taken as a whole, the marginal impact on

jobs of moving to new ecosystem management

strategies will likely be neutral. Overall, the Basin

economy is robust and changes in FS and BLM

land management activities have little effect on

overall economic growth. Timber-related jobs

may increase slightly throughout the Basin for the

next 50 years. Jobs associated with cattle grazing

on Federal lands may decrease slightly, but the

numbers affected are small relative to the total

employment of the Basin. By producing more

aesthetic landscapes, jobs created by attracting

business to locations with a high quality of life will

increase.

"Old-growth" forests—Ecosystem management

will maintain "old-growth" forests in a number of

ways. Timber harvesting practices will target

smaller-diameter trees that will result in landscapes

with larger trees, and increase recruitment into

old-growth forests by accelerating growth rates of

middle-aged stands. It will also reduce the risk of

losing old-growth forests to fire, insect, and disease

disturbances.

Quality of life—Ecosystem management has

potential to improve the quality of life in the Basin

by maintaining flows of both goods and services

that can stimulate economic activity. In striving to

meet the demands of competing interests it will

also improve the quality of life by reducing conflict and strife.

Recreation—The effects of ecosystem management on recreation activity will be relatively minor, but can be positive or negative depending on

how it is implemented. Closing roads in popular

recreation areas will be controversial, as will building new roads into previously unroaded areas.

Limiting recreation in riparian areas has the potential to disrupt a major resource use in many areas.

On the other hand, ecosystem management can

improve recreation by increasing aesthetic qualities.

Scenic integrity—Ecosystem management has

potential to improve the visual condition of previously modified landscapes by increasing vegetative

variety. It can also reduce the risk of losing highly

aesthetic landscapes to wide-scale disturbances and

human activity.

168
Unroaded areas—One of the major social issues

in the Basin concerns "unroaded" areas. Building

roads into an unroaded area presents a paradox; on

one hand new roads provide access for recreation

and other resource use, on the other they remove

opportunities to experience back-country settings

and cause potential risk to some ecological resources. If the desire is to reduce conflict over

land management, ecosystem management would

explicitly consider the balance of recreation access

and unroaded areas through a variety of tools

including analytical methods, survey instruments,

and an open public process.

8. What is the effect of ecosystem

management on maintenance of latesuccessional and old-growth systems?

Management has the potential to improve both

the area and connectivity of late-successional and

old-forest structures on landscapes where such

structures would occur under natural disturbance

regimes. Where the natural disturbance regime

does not support late-successional and old-growth

systems, it will be difficult to maintain these

structures on the site.

The term old-growth has both a social and ecological connotation in this assessment. In ecological terms it refers to forests that are described as

late-seral forests or old forests and have important

characteristics and functions for native species

habitats and ecological systems. They are often a

small, but important component on many forested

landscapes. The amount, structure, composition,

and patterns of late-seral forests are variable. In

the Basin late-seral forests are often found in

specific settings that are correlated with lowintensity surface fire regimes, mixed fire regimes,

or very long intervals (that is, 200 years or greater)

between fires.

Late-seral forests are found in all forest potential

vegetation groups, but differ in their structure and

composition. Surface fire regimes are typically

found in the dry forest or in the cold forests with

herb and low shrub understories. Mixed fire

regimes are typically found in the moist forest or

in riparian areas. Very long-interval fire regimes

are typically found in very wet areas.

This understanding of the biophysical setting and

associated disturbance regimes provides a basic

template for application of ecosystem management. Past harvest practices have typically reduced, fragmented, and/or changed structures of

much of the late-seral forest. Ecosystem management would reverse these trends.

In many areas of the dry and moist forests, the

suppression of surface and mixed fire regimes have

allowed many single-layer late-seral forests (such as

ponderosa pine), to succeed into multiple-layer

forests (such as, Douglas-fir and grand fir). These

late-seral forests usually have increased risks for

high-intensity crown fires. To address these risks,

these multiple-layer communities can be converted

to single-layer communities through mechanically

thinning understory trees and using prescribed

fires. Where harvest has removed the long-interval, late-seral, multiple-layer forests, ecosystem

management would actively promote restoration

for rapid growth of similar structures. Wildlife

species associated with these late-seral forests are

cavity excavators and those with large home

ranges.

It is important to point out that in the Basin a

dominant forest structure described was scattered,

large, residual, trees in a mid-seral forest. This

forest structure occurs in a mixed fire regime

where surface and crown fires left large residual

dead or live trees and younger trees grew beneath

the scattered residuals. The residual large live trees

are usually the shade-intolerant, and insect- and

disease-resistant trees that provide seed for the next

forest. Removal of these trees has often resulted in

conversion of the seed source from shade-intolerant species to shade-tolerant fire-, insect-, and

disease-susceptible species, as well as losing the

diverse structure. Harvest of the large live or dead

residual trees from these types results in the loss of

important habitats as well as components in long169
term nutrient cycles. Management practices can

promote the maintenance of these large residual

trees where they exist and where they have been

harvested or otherwise lost, management can focus

on rapid growth of selected young trees with

similar characteristics.

In cases where the long-term disturbance regimes

do not support late-seral forests, management

actions to maintain late-seral forests may be required to create short-term habitats for rare species. However, the risks of this strategy would

need to be assessed and adequate investments

made in fire suppression and other management

activities to maintain the forest for the short term.

9. What management actions will restore

and maintain ecosystem health (forest,

rangeland, riparian, and aquatic health)?

If the goal is to restore and maintain ecosystem

structure, composition, and disturbance regimes

working toward a healthier system, there are several broad actions that are recommended. The

Component Assessment provides an assessment of

the conditions and trends of the Basin at a broad

resolution over regional and sub-regional areas.

Assessments having finer resolution will also be

needed for management to recommend more

specific actions. Tiering assessment information

from broad to fine through more detailed and sitespecific analyses will result in consistent management activities that address risks to resources as

well as meeting broadly defined and site-specific

objectives.

To assess ecological processes and the condition of

viable populations, land managers need to consider strategies that match forest and range vegetation structure, composition, and patterns to the

Basin's biophysical templates. For example, land

type phases that are specific to small geographic

areas and land type associations that are specific to

large geographic areas could be used to develop

descriptions of biophysical templates. It is critical

that managers consider long-term (as well as shortterm) effects on species viability, biodiversity, and

ecological functions.

For aquatic and riparian systems, there are several

opportunities to work toward a healthier system.

Conservation and restoration of small watersheds

will ensure short-term persistence of important

aquatic populations, while conservation and restoration of habitat networks throughout large basins

will provide for long-term stability, productivity,

and biological diversity. If managers want to connect isolated clusters of watersheds, watershed

restoration and exotic fish containment will be

required with emphasis placed on those watersheds

containing strong native populations and high

aquatic integrity. Riparian areas function to filter

sediment transport to streams, introduce woody

debris for in-stream structure, provide structure

and cover for terrestrial species, and water temperature regulation. Maintaining riparian areas to

accommodate these functions will be important to

aquatic systems.

If the objective is to have a full array of historic

vegetation conditions, the ecosystems most in

need of restoration are native grasslands, native

shrublands, and old forests. In these ecosystems, a

concern is woodland establishment and conversion

of shrub-grasslands where fire-regimes have minimized tree establishment, and tree species have

excluded understory species or have known potential to eventually exclude understory species.

There is a need to curb expansion of exotic grasses

and forbs and to prevent invasion and establishment of new exotic grasses and forbs.

10. What can the FS and the BLM do to

implement adaptive management, and what

are the consequences on ecologic,

economic, and social systems in the Basin?

A variety of approaches are required to implement

adaptive management. It will be necessary to

regularly define what society wants from the

Federal lands through a variety of methods including economic and sociological analytical methods,

surveys, mutual learning, and collaborative planning. It will also be necessary to develop a process

for regular input of knowledge and evaluation
from the scientific community; to develop protocols for long-term research and learning; and, to

develop the internal skills in agency personnel to

operate effectively in the public and political

environment.

In conducting adaptive management, agencies

should use quantifiable experimental methods,

including clear statements of hypotheses, initial

inventory and characterization, establish experimental controls, replicated observations, and

monitoring. Experiments should be allowed to be

completed so that learning takes place. Ecosystem

integrity is steadily improved with informed management decisions.

The consequence of adaptive management on

economic, cultural, and social systems will be

quite positive in that management will be more

closely aligned with peoples expectations. By

being so aligned, adaptive management reduces

rapid changes in management direction. The

public will be more invested in land management

decisions and activities.

11. What can the FS and the BLM do to

protect endangered species (such as salmon,

grizzly bear, gray wolf, caribou) and to

insure the viability of native and desired

non-native plant and animal species?

The material and cultural legacy of the past has

presented some difficult or immovable barriers to

protection of endangered species; some likely will

not change appreciably. Dams, major highways,

power corridors, and irretrievable habitat loss to

agricultural, industrial, and residential developments will set limits to protection of some endangered species. Public attitudes in some sectors

toward wildlife, especially predators, and wildlife

conservation relative to economic development are

barriers to conservation of some species. Proposals

for basing species conservation on economic gains

or losses are not encouraging because traditional

patterns of resource extraction, local culture and

custom, and private property use favor consumptive uses of forest and rangeland ecosystems. Intensive management for consumptive uses often

results in simplified ecosystems with unusual

dynamics and exotic species that simplify diverse

natural ecosystems. International issues of ocean

fishing and land use north and south of the

United States relative to neotropical migrating

birds or wide-ranging terrestrial species (such as

grizzly bear, wolf, woodland caribou) complicate

effectiveness of local initiatives.

Agencies can work toward protecting species type

localities and scarce, critical habitats; maintaining

well-distributed, well-connected, persistent highquality habitat; reducing mortality from human

activities; and reducing or controlling exotic species (See response to Policy Question 5 for a discussion of managing habitat and populations for

sustainable or viable populations). In some cases,

habitat may be less important than direct negative

effects on populations. Many wide-ranging threatened, endangered, or sensitive species (such as

grizzly bear, gray wolf, wolverine) are relatively

general in habitat use (that is, use many habitat

types), but are limited mainly by human displacement or poaching. The solution for such species is

isolation from humans, which may mean land-use

allocations and control of road access. Roads also

can degrade aquatic habitat quality. Introduction

of non-native or exotic fish (such as rainbow trout

and brook trout, bass, and walleye), plants (such as

exotic weeds) and animal species (now well controlled) can complicate, and in some cases limit,

efforts to improve populations of endangered

species.

Conservation agreements and recovery plans

among states, Tribes, and Federal agencies

encourage cooperation in addressing these

issues and offer an effective approach for Federal land management. These agreements require close cooperation between the FS, BLM,

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS). Some cooperation would be enhanced by joint field offices. Coordination

with the public can facilitate mutual learning.

171
Effects of Specific Policy

Actions

1. Within the context of the Northwest

Forest Plan (NWFP), what are the options

for achieving the objectives where the

NWFP overlaps the Eastside strategies?

Land allocations from the NWFP included emphasis to achieve integrity of the late-successional,

"old-growth," and riparian systems. However, the

late-succession and old forest reserves do not

consider disturbance regimes of the biophysical

settings they occupy. These reserves may not be

maintainable in their existing state. For example,

old forest structures typical of dry forest settings

would be comprised primarily of open park-like

stands of large trees of early-seral species such as

ponderosa pine and western larch. Frequent

underburns would maintain wide spacings and

would eliminate shade-tolerant understories.

Currently dry forest settings such as these are

generally densely-stocked and multi-layered, with

understories dominated by shade-tolerant species.

In contrast, old forest structures of mesic settings

occur in mosaics; a result of mixed severity fires

having underburning and stand-replacement

components. Old forest structures in mesic environments are both single- and multi-story structures. Current mesic setting late-successional and

old-forest structures within the NWFP area are

predominantly multi-story, lacking regular

underburning. In the cool and moist settings,

high-severity fire regimes predominated as they do

today. Old forest structures in these areas are

relatively unchanged, and current NWFP direction appears consistent.

The NWFP identifies key watersheds on the east

side of the Cascade Mountains. The ICBEMP

Assessment identified watersheds with high

aquatic integrity (high species diversity, strong

populations, and a high ratio of native to exotic

species). Key watersheds identified in the NWFP

correspond well with current watersheds of high

aquatic integrity. These watersheds are well placed

and will perform ecologically as intended; that is,

they provide important anchor points or focal

watersheds for maintaining strong salmonid populations and habitats.

In the NWFP, to identify management options

requires local action (and site specific analysis).

This poses problems for agencies used to prescribed planning methods and poses opportunities

for those capable of institutional change.

2. What is the effect of implementing the

interim direction of the PACFISH and/or

other proposed aquatic conservation

strategies on FS and BLM lands in the

Basin?

The effect is positive on the Basin because it

changes the focus from stands and specific project

sites to conditions of whole watersheds. Where

specific information about the riparian system and

watershed exists, default buffers can be adjusted

with better information about entire watersheds

and site-specific conditions. If forced to manage

by detailed metrics (for example, pools per mile,

or number of large woody pieces per mile), standards and guides should be derived from general

planning processes and inventory information that

considers specific biophysical environments rather

than rigid quantifiable thresholds. Overly prescriptive protocols will often lead to unachievable

objectives.

The social and economic effects of implementing

PACFISH are mixed and negative in the shortterm. Short-term negative effects include temporary closure of developed recreation sites during

spawning and critical fish migration periods.

Longer-term negative effects potentially include

some timber and range program reductions in

localized areas prone to high surface erosion.

172
Process Questions

1. What are the principles and processes

that can be used for ecosystem

management?

The Framework outlines the principles and processes that can be used for implementing ecosystem management. A brief summary of these is

provided here.

The Ecological Society of America (1995) defines

ecosystem management as "...management driven

by explicit goals, executed by policies, protocols,

and practices, and made adaptable by monitoring

and research based on our best understanding of

the ecological interactions and processes necessary

to sustain ecosystem composition, structure, and

function." It is the application of management

practices considering multiple geographic areas

and multiple timeframes.

The BLM and FS can use four ecosystem principles as a foundation for developing ecosystem

management strategies: ecosystems (1) are dynamic; (2) can be viewed hierarchically with spatial and temporal dimensions; (3) have limits; (4)

and are not completely predictable. These principles can be used within a general planning process to achieve desired outcomes and conditions.

Ecosystem processes, structures, and functions are

constantly changing, requiring management strategies to constantly monitor outcomes and conditions. Interagency coordination and

intergovernmental cooperation are desired as is the

active involvement of stakeholders. Foremost for

adaptive management strategies to succeed is that

cumulative risks need to be managed to retain

management options at all decision levels, from

national to individual site. Such an approach

necessitates that management activities be devised

as testable hypotheses at the onset; monitoring is

integral, not added as an after thought. Adaptive

management strategies are iterative, where monitoring leads to continuous adjustments in land

management decisions and implementation plans.

Goals for natural resource management of the FS

and BLM are set at multiple administrative levels

and geographic extents. Through policy statements, directives, budget decisions, executive

orders, congressional direction, and National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process goals

are set for national, regional, sub-regional, landscape, and site levels.

Ecosystem management goals can be achieved

through developing an understanding of the

conditions at each geographic extent, and determining the capability of the land through understanding the ecological processes now and in the

future ("biophysical template"). These are influenced, in turn, by our actions. Examples include

landtype phases, which are specific to small geographic areas, and landtype associations, which

pertain to larger areas. For example, the ability of

the land to produce fish is determined by conditions both "on site" (such as habitat, cover, and

food sources) and "off site" (such as dams, harvesting, and disease). Thus, the biophysical template

is both the basic capability of the land and the

changes in capacity as influenced by past and

future activities. In order to provide context,

management actions need to be linked consistently within a hierarchy. To achieve ecological

goals such as maintaining ecological processes,

viable populations of native and desired nonnative species, and the full set of key ecological

functions of species, Federal land managers would

match changes in forest and range vegetation

structure, composition, and pattern to biophysical

templates.

Assessments at larger geographic extents using

broad data resolution provide context for smaller

geographic extent assessments and regional decisions. These latter assessments provide context for

watershed assessments and related decisions. In

addition, mid-geographic extent assessments

describe processes and functions not evident in

large (that is, regional) assessments while the small

(that is, watershed) geographic extent assessments

reveal processes undetected with mid-geographic

extent assessments.

173
An ecosystem management strategy can involve

three levels of analysis: region and/or sub-regional

assessments, landscape assessments, and site or

project analysis. Ecoregion assessments can be

used to develop Regional Guides and Forest Plan

Amendments, BLM statewide direction and BLM

district plans at regional geographic extents. Assessments provide understanding of the ecological

systems within watersheds and incorporate concerns at the landscape geographic extent. Project

or site analysis deals with specific land management actions. The FS and BLM, through the

ICBEMP, will have at their disposal both a broadregional assessment and mid-sub-regional assessment for some issues/questions. These data can be

used to give context to the watershed assessments

being conducted throughout the Basin and to set

priorities within larger subbasins. It also will

provide increased understanding of biophysical

and social-economic systems to evaluate specific

management actions at specific sites, through

environmental impact statement processes.

Management flexibility is attained to the extent

risks can be managed at the lowest level possible.

For example, a risk would be considered a "regional risk" if the risk could not be adequately

addressed by making incremental, individual

decisions at lower levels. An example is activities

that threaten anadromous fish populations. Insuring the viability of a wide-ranging fish species

includes providing adequate connectivity, distribution, and abundance through high-quality suitable

habitat for the species. Taking a piecemeal approach to where the species habitat will be emphasized will not ensure the habitat is connected,

abundant, or well-distributed. Taking a systems

approach to decisions regarding which portions of

all potential habitats will be managed will help

ensure quality habitat is well distributed for the

species. The alternative would be to conservatively

manage all habitat by not permitting any of it to

be adversely altered, thus, reducing flexibility for

management. By strategically making the decision

of where, in specific, the species habitat would be

emphasized, management has potentially more

options to consider as new decisions are made.

Managing directly to achieve opportunities, desired outcomes, and the provision of goods and

services might result in new risks to achieving the

goals. There is nothing inherently wrong with

setting out to achieve some goals that are output

oriented toward commodities. Managing the full

complement of risks associated with all management goals dictates that the new risks to ecological

objectives, created through achieving the outcomes

(outputs) be evaluated to determine how these

affect the cumulative risks to the ecological goals

for the area. This evaluation could result in

changes in the way the practices are applied, the

provision of other goods and services, or the total

risks to the ecological objectives being analyzed. It

becomes an iterative process, analyzing risks associated with not achieving ecological goals, determining the effects on outputs (outcomes),

modifying actions that result in new projections of

output levels, determining effects on risks to

ecological goals, adjusting as appropriate, and

cycling through the analysis until the risks to

ecological goals are acceptable and the output

levels are achieved to the extent possible.

The key components of a monitoring program

include:

• management goals and objectives that clearly

define the information needed in a monitoring

program and reflects different geographic extents

and timeframes,

• both biophysical and social components,

• an experimental design including a hypothesis,

methods, and indicator variables with adequate

sample size to insure inferences are made with

sound statistical analysis,

• and, robust indicator variables that reflect

changes before they become problems, so they

can act as an early warning system for management activities.

174
In the general planning model, we identified four

types of monitoring: implementation, effectiveness, validation, and baseline monitoring. How

managers apply each type depends on the management objectives and goals developed within an

ecosystem strategy.

2. How can we use the assessment to

identify emerging policy issues that relate

to ecosystem management within the

Basin?

The assessment identifies a number of emerging

ecosystem trends and conditions that could be

addressed though various policy actions. In general the assessment did not propose policy actions,

but its databases and models could be used to

measure the consequences of proposed actions.

3. How can we deal with uncertainty in

ecological processes, social values,

predicting outcomes, and scientific

understanding?

Uncertainty is present in virtually all management

activities and scientific understandings. The real

strength of statistical analysis is in being able to

reject a hypothesis that was proposed as true, thus

uncertainty is removed, not by proving the hypothesis is true, but by demonstrating that it is

false. When we cannot disprove a hypothesis, we

are really saying we do not yet have enough information to disprove it. Uncertainty then is present

in each relation proposed in ecosystem management approaches. Perhaps the best way to address

uncertainty is to reveal the level of confidence one

has in predicting outcomes. High levels of uncertainty might lead to very conservative management approaches.

Each SIT product attempted to reveal the level of

uncertainty associated with the information provided.

175
In developing the integrated assessment, the SIT

encountered a number of science gaps and emerging management issues. Some of the science gaps

reflect a lack of information, while others reflect

lack of data at the geographic extents used in an

ecoregion assessment. Some of the emerging

issues are new findings; others confirm longstanding, but not documented, land management

concepts.

Management Issues

In this section, we summarize new management

issues that we identified in the course of our work.

• To what degree, and under what

circumstances should ecosystem

restoration be active or passive?

Ecosystem restoration activities should be assessed

on a case-by-case basis for potential short- and

long-term effects of restoring each ecosystem.

There are instances where long-term benefits may

not exceed short-term environmental costs or

adverse ecosystem impacts, making a passive

restoration approach more appropriate. Differences in geographic areas and the biophysical

template may dictate when active or passive restoration is appropriate. For example, restoring a

watershed that has stable channel types, has minimal erosion and sediment transport, and modest

precipitation but which is highly sensitive, may

cause detrimental effects. In other areas, active

restoration is required to decrease the risk of catastrophic events. In addition, the timing of restoration work is also important for reducing adverse

effects or risk from other disturbances. Finally,

ecosystem restoration efforts—both passive and

active—need to be appropriate and within the

capability of the ecosystem being restored.

• How will ecosystem management

contribute to meeting treaty and trust

responsibilities to American Indian

tribes?

Ecosystem-based management will enhance the

Federal Governments opportunities to meet its

trust responsibilities by (1) restoring (where possible) ecological processes, and (2) enhancing our

recognition of the significance of the environment

in American Indian culture and therefore our

ability to protect specific places of significance.

One goal for the restoration of ecological processes, including the restoration of aquatic and

riparian habitats, could be to enhance the abundance and distribution of plants and animals

important to tribes, especially in those places with

social and traditional significance.

The intense interest in natural resource management by the Indian population in the Basin is

based in their long-term cultural attachment to the

land. Although the American Indian societies in

the region differ in many ways, they hold shared

beliefs and values about their relationship with the

land and water. All tribes attach cultural and

religious significance to various places especially

177

CHAPTER 7

EMERGING MANAGEMENT

ISSUES AND SCIENCE

GAPS
standing presence of Indian peoples and the totality of landscape and resource importance have

contributed to strong attachments to place. Ecosystem-based management recognizes the important cultural links American Indian people have

with the environment.

Recognition of special forest products, such as

beargrass, mushrooms, and berries also can be an

important element of ecosystem-based management. We would expect that ecosystem management would provide enhanced opportunities for

harvest of these products, particularly for their

traditional cultural uses. Consultation with tribal

governments would be an integral part of ecosystem management.

Basin treaties provide for reserved tribal rights to

pasture livestock, and to fish, hunt, gather and

trap the products of the land. Many places where

harvest activities occur also have strong sociocultural place meanings and attachments. These

traditional activities have developed together with

the cultural and symbolic significance of place.

Restoration and conservation of culturally significant places and species would contribute to the

biophysical template and ecosystem structures,

patterns, and processes.

• Can salvage timber sales be compatible

with ecosystem-based management?

They can be, but much depends on the types of

stand structures that are harvested. As currently

defined (in Public Law 104-19, see U.S. Laws and

Statutes 1995), salvage emphasizes the extraction

of specified volumes of dead and green trees at risk

of dying. As such, harvest will emphasize larger

trees, both green and recent dead, of desirable

species (ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir). Our findings suggest that this type of harvesting is not

compatible with contemporary ecosystem-based

management. Ecosystem-based management

would emphasize removing smaller green trees

with greater attention to prevention of mortality

rather than removal of large dead trees.

The landscape ecology assessment found a substantial increase from historic to current times in

178

the area of dense multi-story forest structures. For

the most part, these types of stand structures

originated as a result of past selective harvesting

and the exclusion of fire, and generally now have

elevated fuel loads, susceptibility to bark beetles,

defoliators, and stand-replacing fires. In these

landscapes because of past selective harvesting,

more rather than fewer large or potentially large

trees are needed to sustain ecosystem processes,

and some medium-sized trees (16 in/4l cm in

diameter or larger) are needed for large tree recruitment.

Tree harvesting can be a useful tool to promote

desired stand structure and composition, but often

(as in the Taylor Salvage Law, PL 104-19) harvesting appears to emphasize volume extraction. It is

also a useful tool in managing fuel loads where the

emphasis is on removing small and medium-size

material, which comprises the bulk of the current

fuel hazard. Cutting of small and medium-size

trees can minimize these concerns, while harvesting of larger trees has little effect on reducing fuel

loads. High-density stands dominated by small

and medium-diameter trees are the focus of many

current ecosystem health concerns.

Prevention strategies are more effective than corrective strategies at improving forest health; that is,

it is preferable to make adjustments in the structure, composition, and pattern of living vegetation

within a watershed than to work with what remains of living and dead vegetation after fire or

pest outbreaks. Prevention strategies are best

applied to whole watersheds. Traditional approaches to salvage are also less advantageous in an

economic sense because they emphasize extraction

of dead rather than green trees. They also tend to

emphasize stand rather than watershed treatments.

In an ecosystem sense, the highest priority treatment areas for salvage are the low- and mid-montane forests, and the dry and mesic forest settings

where the greatest changes in structure, composition, and disturbance regimes have occurred.

Within those settings, currently roaded areas

should be treated first because they are already

accessible for salvage without additional road-
should be treated first because they are already

accessible for salvage without additional roadbuilding expense and effects. Salvage operations

in already roaded areas can, in many cases, generate funds to reduce the adverse effects associated

with roads. There is a lower ecological risk to

anadromous and cold water fish and hydrologic

systems associated with salvage operations in

already roaded watersheds. Addition of new roads

for salvage would in many areas further reduce and

fragment existing fish strongholds. Salvage harvest

methods in burned areas will also need to consider

minimizing surface soil disturbance and reducing

road-related sediment problems.

Science Gaps

Future research can be focused to address science and information gaps, including the design of monitoring protocols and data collection activities. The science gaps the SIT identified are within three areas: biophysical, socioeconomic, and methods.

Biophysical Science

and Information Gaps

• There are currently no standardized sampling

and monitoring methods. This includes population measurements, species distributions, and

physical variables such as stream morphology or

stream sediment geochemistry.

• Monitoring programs need revision, because

monitoring programs typically measure easily

determined variables, such as tree diameter,

rather than focusing on rate- or process-determining variables. Monitoring programs typically

are long-term activities and may require repeated

measurements to obtain the needed information.

• Methods for archiving, accessing, and updating

databases are inconsistent or uncoordinated.

• Additional information is needed to understand

ecological processes and the interactions between

processes.

• Studies are needed to determine species viability,

population dynamics, and habitat relations in all

environments.

• Empirical studies are needed to understand

ecological functions of organisms.

• Studies are needed to understand how people

access wildlands (for example, roads, trails, and

their condition).

• More information is needed to determine how

changes in climate affect vegetation and habitat

changes, locally and over large geographic areas.

• More information is needed on the effects of

geology on landscape, aquatic, and terrestrial

patterns and processes. Over multiple geographic areas, such information can help predict

range and habitats for aquatic and terrestrial

species.

• Information is needed to help understand the

interactions between terrestrial and aquatic

systems.

• Improved engineering techniques are required so

that future road building minimizes aquatic

disturbance. This requires research on a variety

of biophysical factors.

• Information is needed on how livestock grazing

affects encroachment of woody species and

invasion of exotic species.

Socioeconomic Science and

Information Gaps

• Methods are needed for identifying places and

their meanings, and more information is needed

on these places, in order to help understand a

community's and society's relationship with and

value for places.

• Methods are needed to determine what values

society places on healthy ecosystems.

• Methods are needed to help determine how

people perceive risks associated with natural

catastrophes. An important related issue is developing a broader understanding of the urban/rural

interface, specifically concerning issues such as

wildfire and wildlife.

1 7 9
Gaps in Scientific Methods

• Methods for determining ecological risk need to

be improved.

• Information is needed on using information with

different data resolutions and geographic extents.

In particular, how can information from smaller

geographic areas be applied at larger geographic

areas; tree diameter, restoration, and recreation

information do not translate to large landscapes.

• Methods are needed to determine public acceptance of ecosystem management strategies and

disturbance regimes.

• Information is needed to link between ecological

process models and spatial tools (Geographic

Information System).

• More accurate computer models are needed for

predicting effects of management practices on

ecosystems and refining the role that computer

models play in relating assumptions. This is

particularly true on burned area salvage projects.

For example, predictions are needed on what

kind of trees and how many would be left to

achieve different management objectives.

• More systematic integrative frameworks are

needed. This includes protocols and methods for

using data derived from expert opinion and the

need for systematic databases that incorporate

information from many sources.

• We need to learn how to make decisions on

issues for which we have no data, determine

which data is important, and learn how to most

effectively collect the right data to provide the

best information possible for decision makers.

Emerging Science Issues

Five main issues surfaced concerning how to

implement ecosystem management on FS- and

BLM-administered lands in the Basin. They are:

• We did not fully understand the extent or role of

exotics in the Basin. There are several ecosystems

where exotics—both desired and noxious—dominate ecosystems. This is especially true of some

of the range and range/forestland ecosystems.

• We did not fully consider the correlation between roads and social desires. We found conflicting reasons, for example, for entering or not

entering "roadless areas." We need to consider

the balance between roaded natural and

unroaded recreation settings, while considering

the risks to aquatic strongholds and terrestrial

habitats from road building.

• We had not anticipated the data indicating the

extensive loss of large trees in the landscapes over

much of the Basin. The harvest legacy has been

more extensive than we thought. This raises

questions about needed improvements in databases and monitoring of both harvest levels and

stand conditions.

• There are several National Forests and BLM

Districts where projected human population

growth will change the mix of outputs. The

Boise National Forest and others will likely

become "recreation" forests like the westside

forests near Seattle, Washington, or the front

range forests near Denver, Colorado. The ERUs

likely affected most will be the North and South

Cascades, Columbia Plateau, Upper and Lower

Clark Fork, Central Idaho Mountains, Snake

Headwaters, and the Northern Glaciated Mountains.

• Ecosystem management advocates need to be

more forward-looking. They need to anticipate

how demands on resources from the public lands

will change in coming decades. The tendency

has been to judge ecosystem management by

what has happened in the past two decades,

rather than focus on how ecosystem management

and conditions will evolve into the future.

180
The following findings draw from our experience

in developing all the ICBEMP Assessment products (the Framework, detailed assessments of ecosystem components, Evaluation of the EIS

Alternatives by the SIT, and this Integrated Assessment). More detailed findings specific to individual science areas and those related to trends,

conditions, or processes are in each document.

Findings are in three main categories—general

issues, those specific to achieving goals, and those

of an organizational nature.

Overall Findings

We found that an active approach to ecosystem

management within an adaptive framework could

lead to higher ecological integrity and social and

economic resiliency within ecosystems of the

Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and

Great basins. This approach would recognize the

dynamic nature of the interior ecosystems, their

current ecological status, and the demands placed

on interior ecosystems to provide for human

values and uses.

The highlighted findings are:

1. There has been a 27 percent decline in multilayer and 60 percent decline in single-layer oldforest structures, predominantly in forest types

used commercially.

2. Aquatic biodiversity has declined through local

extirpations, extinctions, and introduction of

exotic species, and the threat to riparianassociated species has increased.

3. Watershed disturbances, both natural and

human induced, have caused and continue to

cause risks to ecological integrity, especially

owing to isolation and fragmentation of habitat.

4. The threat of severe fire has increased; 18

percent more of the fires that burn are in the

lethal fire severity class now than historically. In

the forest PVGs lethal fires have increased by 30

percent.

5. Rangeland health and diversity have declined

owing to exotic species introductions, changing

fire regimes, and increasing woody vegetation.

6. Rapid change is taking place in the communities and economies of the Basin although the

rates of change are not uniform.

Landscape Ecology Findings

Continuing to manage vegetation using historical

levels and approaches of stand management is

unlikely to reverse trends in vegetation conditions.

In the last 100 years fire suppression hazards and

costs, fire intensity, and firefighter fatalities have

doubled; insect, disease, and fire susceptibility

have increased by 60 percent; white pine and

whitebark pine have decreased in moist and cold

forested vegetation types owing to blister rust (see

photos 14a and 14b); native grasslands have decreased by 70 percent; native shrublands have

decreased by 30 percent; large residual trees and

snags have decreased by 20 percent; and old forest

structures have decreased by 27 to 60 percent.

181

CHAPTER 8

FINDINGS
The greatest changes in landscape patterns and

processes have been in roaded areas historically

managed with intensive treatments. Landscape

patterns have changed on 97 percent of the landscapes basin-wide. Vegetation patterns have

changed, thus altering the risks associated with

their persistence.

Terrestrial Ecology Findings

There are 264 species within the Basin with Federal listing status under the Endangered Species

Act of which 27 are threatened or endangered

species. Some threatened and endangered species

are dependent on habitat components that were

not evaluated at the Basin level. Habitat conditions for nearly all species were found to be more

favorable historically as compared to now. Continuing current management approaches would

result in more species with declining habitat and

more species of potential concern than would

managing with restoration or reserve emphasis.

Management options aimed at restoration are

projected to result in only moderate improvements

in habitat outcomes for species of potential concern. The overall likelihood of extirpations has

increased from historic to current conditions and

is projected to continue increasing under current

management approaches; fewer extirpations are

likely under the restoration approach to management than under the reserve approach. Species

that are likely in decline are associated with landscape and habitat components that are declining,

specifically old-forest structures, native shrublands,

182

Photos 14a and 14b—Due to wide-spread infestation of white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola), white pine and

whitebark pine have decreased in moist and cold forest vegetation types in the Basin. These photos show before and

after effects of blister rust on forest stands dominated by western white pine.
and native grasslands. Habitat degradation is

more pronounced in lower elevation watersheds.

The core pieces remain for rebuilding and maintaining quality native terrestrial species habitat. We

mapped 7 centers of biodiversity and 12 hot spots

of species rarity and endemism within the Basin.

Aquatic Ecology Findings

Key salmon species have seen declines in habitat,

abundance, and life histories. Population strongholds for the key salmonids range from less than 1

percent to 32 percent of the occupied range of the

species. The occupied range varies between 28

percent and 85 percent of the historic range.

Declines for anadromous species have been the

greatest; even if habitat stabilizes, fragmentation,

isolation, and off-site hazards put remaining populations at risk. Habitat degradation is greatest in

lower elevation watersheds, which include private

lands. Though much of the native ecosystem has

been altered, the core pieces remain for rebuilding

and maintaining functioning native aquatic systems. Rehabilitating depressed populations of

anadromous salmonids cannot rely on habitat

improvement alone but requires a concerted effort

to address causes of mortality in all life stages.

These include freshwater spawning and rearing,

juvenile migration, ocean survival, and adult

migration.

Social Findings

People and communities within the Basin are

undergoing rapid change. Social resiliency varies;

drier climates are generally associated with lower

resiliency, such as in ranching- and agriculturebased communities. Communities that have

weathered recent economic or social disruptions

are generally more resilient. Human attachments

to places are important in determining the acceptability of management actions. Ecosystem management will require strong cross-jurisdictional

cooperation, yet is still evolving. Overall scenic

quality within the Basin is high.

Economic Findings

Overall, Basin economies are experiencing growth,

especially in metropolitan and recreation counties.

Regional economies are diverse and have high

resiliency, but resiliency varies by size of the economic sectors. FS and BLM activities account for

13 percent of the regional economies of the Basin.

The importance of FS and BLM activities varies

within the Basin, with activities in eastern Oregon

having the most importance. Recreation is highly

valued as a regional, national, and international

resource. At current growth rates recreation use

will double in the next 31 years.

Geographic Information Findings

Consistent databases at the Basin level are scarce.

An interagency approach could greatly improve

the quality of information and support continuing

assessments that are part of the adaptive management process.

Findings for Selected Issues

This section summarizes our general findings

around major issues identified through our various

public interactions.

Accessibility—We found a great deal of ambiguity about the amount of road access needed to

satisfy public needs. Issues include the ecological

consequences of roading, and the effects (both

good and bad) on different kinds of public recreation. Many people oppose extensive road closures, while at the same time many people support

improving habitats and reducing erosion. Management strategies include reducing road densities

and redesigning and improving maintenance of

road networks.

Communities—Communities are more complex

than labels such as "timber dependent" would

imply. Most communities in the Basin have

mixed economies and their vitality is linked to

factors broader than resource flows from FS- and

BLM-administered lands. In the Basin, both

communities and economies associated with

agricultural or ranching operations are less resilient

than other types.

183
Fire—It is not possible to "fireproof' ecosystems

in the Basin, but the potential of severe fire can be

reduced by proactive land management. In terms

of social and economic outcomes, the greatest

potential management concerns are likely to be in

the rural/urban wildland interface. Severe fires do

put ecological integrity at risk. Management

treatments aimed at reducing severe fire are not

without risk to ecological integrity and concern to

humans, pointing to the need for an integrated

approach to risk management.

Fish—The identification of aquatic strongholds

and areas of high fish community integrity and

other aquatic information provides a basis for the

conservation and restoration of aquatic ecosystems. Such information also provides a basis for

building effective strategies that can simultaneously benefit terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

This strategy could include protection of highintegrity areas and restoration of areas with lower

integrity.

Forest Health—We found that forested ecosystems have become more susceptible to severe fire

and outbreaks of insects and diseases. Reducing

these risks and hazards involves maintaining forest

cover and structure within a range consistent with

long-term disturbance processes.

Rangeland Health—Rangeland ecosystems

have been affected by historic overgrazing, woody

species encroachment, changes in fire regimes, and

exotic species invasion. Integrated weed management strategies, use of prescribed fire, and managing the season and intensity of grazing use can

result in improved rangeland health. Grazing

strategies with specific objectives for riparian areas

within aquatic strongholds and habitats identified

for threatened and endangered species would

address many of the concerns of rangeland health

related to species diversity.

Managing Risk to Ecological

Integrity—We found that the management of

risks to ecological integrity involves maintenance

of high integrity and enhancement of areas with

low integrity. We found that an integrated approach will be necessary because risks to integrity

arise from many sources (hydrologic, forest, rangeland, aquatic, as well as economic and social).

Reducing risks from one source may increase risks

to another ecological component. The strategy for

risk management will need to be both integrated

and adaptive.

Restoration—We found that there are substantial opportunities to restore and improve ecological integrity on forest and rangeland areas with 74

percent of the FS- and BLM-administered lands of

low or moderate integrity. There are opportunities

to restore landscape patterns, improve connectivity

in aquatic and terrestrial habitats, restore vegetation cover types and structure, and restore hydrologic functions within subbasins. There are

opportunities to restore these patterns, structures,

and vegetation types to be more consistent with

those occurring under disturbance regimes more

typical of biophysical environments. We found

that opportunities exist, albeit at a different scale,

for restoration in virtually every subbasin in the

Basin.

Salvage—We found that salvage activities could

contribute to achievement of long-term ecological

integrity by emphasizing prevention of insect and

disease outbreaks rather than focussing on the

removal of large, recently dead trees. Such an

approach would include removing smaller green

trees as part of the overall management regime

that emphasizes stand structure and composition

at the watershed level (rather than the stand level).

Low risks to ecological integrity would exist from

treating areas currently roaded, where companion

efforts might include reducing adverse effects

associated with roads. Such approaches can be

consistent with attainment of economic objectives

for salvage activities.

Special Forest Products—We found increasing

conflicts between recreational, cultural, and subsistence collection of products such as huckleberries,

mushrooms, and firewood and the growing commercial collection on Federal lands. Land management strategies will be complicated by the local

commercial and cultural importance of these

products.

184
Timber—An ecosystem-based approach to timber harvest places greater emphasis on areas treated

than volumes of timber extracted (that is, a focus

on area rather than volume regulation). The

implication is that the volumes and mix of species

removed can become a by-product of achieving

goals of structure and landscape patterns. Under

this approach, volumes may be more variable than

past forest management approaches.

Findings From the Future

Management Options

Projections of the future are mostly a result of

evaluating options proposed by the FS and BLM

as alternatives in the EIS. Three options were

considered: (1) continuation of current approaches; (2) restoration emphasis; (3) and, reserve

area emphasis.

Managing FS and BLM resources under an approach that continues current management generally results in the lowest ratings compared to other

approaches. Results would include declines in

species habitat and population outcomes, increases

in fire severity, continued declines in fish habitat

and population strongholds, and continued departures from long-term disturbance processes.

Trends would generally be decreasing in composite

integrity and increasing risks in terms of people

and ecological integrity interactions. From a social

and economic perspective this option would

continue, even accelerate, many of the conflicts in

resource use present today.

Managing FS and BLM resources under a reserve

area option within the Basin generally results in

mixed outcomes against the ecosystem management goals. This approach provides improvements in aquatic and terrestrial habitat conditions

as compared to continuing current management

approaches, yet large severe fires are projected to

have detrimental affects on landscape patterns and

processes. Currently degraded systems within the

reserve areas would recover very slowly, some may

not recover for hundreds of years. Trends in

composite integrity and the risks in terms of

people and ecological integrity interactions will,

for the most part, be improving (decreasing risk)

or stable, albeit at a slightly lower level than for the

restoration management emphasis. The social and

economic effects associated with a large reserve

system will be highly variable, mostly depending

on the resiliency of the communities and counties

in close proximity to the reserves.

Managing FS and BLM resources under a restoration emphasis option within the Basin generally

results in more favorable outcomes than continuing the current approaches or managing with a

network of reserves. This approach is more consistent with long-term disturbance processes, has

fewer species with declining habitat outcomes, and

generally halts the decline of salmonid fish habitats. It results in stable or improving trends in

composite integrity, and also results in decreasing

or stable trends in the risk to people and ecological

integrity for most of the area. While having some

negative effects on social and economic elements,

it appears to be the most responsive to American

Indian tribal concerns, public acceptability objectives, and contributes to overall economic and

social resiliency.

Finally, one feature that these management options share is that long-term sustainability of

resources and environments, resiliency of social

and economic systems, and meeting socially desired resource conditions cannot be predicted

without continually assessing results of management activities and adjusting management activities accordingly. When compared with traditional

approaches, active management appears to have

the greatest chance of producing the mix of goods

and services that people want from ecosystems, as

well as maintaining or enhancing the long-term

ecological integrity of the Basin.

185
We described and measured ecosystem integrity in

terms of ecological integrity and socioeconomic

resiliency. We found that proactive management

generally improved ecological integrity but had little

effect on socioeconomic resiliency. We found that

the social and natural resources of the Basin offer a

heritage of exceptional significance to the nation and

the world. Maintaining the integrity and resiliency

of these resources for present and future generations

depends on understanding how society values these

resources, and understanding the natural and human

processes occurring in the Basin. Conservation and

management of these dynamic ecosystems within an

ever-changing social setting are vitally important to

the people who live within the Basin and throughout

the United States.

But we also found (like in FEMAT) that political

and budget realities will be the final deciding factor

in the extent to which these findings will result in

substantive changes in management. There are also

practical lessons that we learned about the conduct

of large multi-scale assessments. Foremost is the

need for clear questions from decision makers. What

decisions do they face and what information will

improve those decisions? The issue is not so much

about defining (and then limiting) the types of

questions, but the science need is for clarity about

types and nature of information needed. Given the

cost of an assessment, we can ill afford to embark on

a data hunt. Second, we need to find and then

commit scientists to the assessment who are integrative, comfortable in the policy arena, and able to

understand broad issues and concerns. The tendency in science communities to reward functional

work over integrative work limits the pool of potential participants. Third, we learned to pay greater

attention to the timeline and the balance between

timelines, data quantity and quality, and emerging

decision issues. We found it difficult as scientists to

accept that existing information presented in a timely

fashion had more influence than detailed data

brought forward later. Fourth, we needed to identify

goals early. In the ICBEMP, we closed on the goals

for ecosystem management in the last quarter of the

project. Fifth, we need a greater focus on cause and

effect types of information (rather than just descriptive material) and the risks to achieving various

effects.

In the end, though, we are reminded that public land

management is really an issue of stewardship. One

aspect of that stewardship is the responsibility to

meet a wide array of societal needs such as wood

fiber, beef, recreation activities, and places of spiritual

and cultural significance. Another aspect is to seek a

balance between todays needs and those expected in

the future. The emergence of ecosystem management is but one step in the evolving process that

attempts to balance current and future relationships

between people and their environment. We have

provided information that we hope will enlighten

and motivate the debate about the balancing process.

We have exposed strengths as well as weaknesses in

the Basins ecological and socioeconomic systems.

We as scientists provide this information so the

political/decision process can continue in a more

transparent fashion with outcomes, consequences,

and interactions more visible and, we hope, understood.

187

CHAPTER 9

LESSONS LEARNED
Acknowledgments

In addition to the SIT, Terrie Jain and Chris

DeForest assisted in assembling the drafts as they

were produced by the SIT. Sylvia Arbelbide provided several reviews of early drafts that were

helpful. Krista McHugh helped by editing several

drafts. Jodi Clifford, Liz Galli-Noble, and Lynn

Starr provided valuable assistance in editing,

compiling, and assembling the final draft. Judy

Mikowski helped by providing lists and figures.

Specific members of the Spatial Analysis Team

provided map products, tables, and analysis: Becky

Gravenmier, Terry Locke, Arthur Miller, Andy

Wilson, Thang Lam, Dave Gilde, Mike Dana,

Cary Lorimor, and Dora DeCoursey.

188
Agee, James 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. 32 p. (Everett, Richard L., team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health

assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment).

Allen, J.E.; Burns, M.; Sargent, S.C. 1986. Cataclysms on the Columbia: a layman's guide to the features

produced by the catastrophic Bretz floods in the Pacific Northwest. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 221 p.

Baldwin, E.M. 1959. Geology of Oregon. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers, Inc. 136 p.

Beuter, John. 1995. Legacy and promise: Oregon's forests and woods product industry. Report to the

Oregon Business Council and the Oregon Forest Resources Institute. 56 p.

Bormann, Bernard T; Brookes, Martha H.; Ford, E. David, [and others]. 1994. Volume V: a framework

for sustainable-ecosystem management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-331. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 61 p. (Everett, Richard L,

assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment).

Brooks, D.J. 1993. U.S. forests in a global context. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-228. Ft. Collins, CO:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station. 24 p.

Brookstrom, A.A.; Zientek, M.L.; Box, S.E., [and others]. 1996. Status and metal content of significant

metallic mineral deposits in the Pacific Northwest: A contribution to the Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project. U.S. Geological Survey. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA 99362. Report 95-688. 102p.

Brown, L.R. 1995. Natures limits. In: Brown, L.R.; Denniston, D; Flavin, C. [and others]. State of the

World 1995. Worldwatch Institute Report. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. 3-20.

Clary, W.P.; McArthur, E.D. 1992. Introduction: ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. In: Clary, W.P.; McArthur, E.D., eds. Proceedings—symposium in ecology and management of

riparian shrub communities, May 29-31, 1991; Sun Valley, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-289.

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 1-2.

189

REFERENCES
Cooper, Stephen V.; Neiman, Kenneth E.; Robers, David W. 1991. Forest habitat types of Northern

Idaho: a second approximation. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-236 Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 143 p.

Cubbage, Frederick W.; O'Laughlin, Jay; Bullock, Charles S. III. 1993- Forest resource policy. New York:

John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 564 p.

Daubenmire, R. 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington. Tech. Bull. 62. Pullman, WA: Washington

Agriculture Experiment Station. 131 p.

Dietrich, W. 1995. Northwest passage. New York: Simon and Schuster. 448 p.

Ecological Society of America. 1995. The scientific basis for ecosystem management: an assessment by

the Ecological Society of America. Prepublication copy, [not paged].

Everett, R.; Oliver, O; Saveland, J. [and others]. 1994. Adaptive ecosystem management. In: Jensen,

M.E.; Bourgeron, P.S., tech. eds. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume II: ecosystem

management: principles and applications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-xxx. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 361-376. (Everett,

Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment).

Everett, Richard L, comp. 1994. Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-330. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 123 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Volume IV).

Faber, M. ; Mansteiten, R.; Proops, J.L.R. 1992. Humankind and the environment: an anatomy of

surprise and ignorance. Environmental Values. 1(3): 217-242.

Finklin, A.I. 1983- Climate of Priest River Experimental Forest, northern Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INTGTR-159. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 53 p.

Finklin, A.I.; Fischer, W.C. 1987. Climate of the Deception Creek Experimental Forest, northern Idaho.

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-226. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 73 p.

Franklin, J.F.; Dyrness, C.T 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. 417 p.

Geist, J.M.; Cochran, P.H. 1991. Influences of volcanic ash and pumic deposition on productivity of

western interior forest soils. In: Harvey, A.E.; Neuenschwander, L.F., eds. Proceedings—Management

and productivity of western-montane forest soils; April 10-12, 1990; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INTGTR-280. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research

Station. 82-89.

Giampietro, Mario. 1994. Sustainability and technological-development agriculture: a critical appraisal of

genetic engineering. BioScience. 44(10): 677-689.

Glover, Teresa; Southard, Leland. 1995- Commodity Spotlight, Cattle industry continues restructuring.

Agricultural Outlook. Herndon, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

December/AO-225: 13-16.

190
Graham, R.T. 1990. Pinus monticola Dougl. ex. D. Don. In: Burns, R.M.; Honkala. B.H., tech. coordinators. Silvics of North America. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 385-394. (Agric. Handbook.; v. 654).

Hann, Wendel J.; Jones, Jeffrey L.; Karl, Michael G. [and others]. 1996. Chapter 3: An Assessment of

Landscape Dynamics of the Basin. In: Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. An Assessment

of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great

Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, [irregular pagination]. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).

Harper, K.T.; St. Clair, L.L.; Thome, K.H.; Hess, W.M. 1994. Introduction. In: Harper, K.T.; St. Clair,

L.L.; Thorne, K.H.; Hess, W.M., eds. Natural history of the Colorado Plateau and Great Basin. Niwot,

CO: University of Colorado Press. 1-7.

Harvey, Alan E.; Geist, J. Michael; McDonald, Gerald I., [and others]. 1994. Biotic and abiotic processes

in eastside ecosystems: the effects of management on soil properties, processes, and productivity. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-323. Portland OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 71 p. (Everett, Richard L, team leader, Eastside forest ecosystem health

assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment).

Haynes, R.W.; Brooks, D.J. [in press]. Forest timber resources. McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and

Technology. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Haynes, Richard W.; Adams, Darius; Mills, John R. 1995. The 1993 RPA timber assessment update.

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-259. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 66 p.

Haynes, Richard W.; Graham, Russell T; Quigley, Thomas M., tech eds. 1996. A framework for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia River basin including portions of the Klamath and Great

basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-374. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 63 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).

Haynes, Richard W.; Home, Amy L. 1996. Chapter 6: Economic Assessment of the Interior Columbia

Basin. In: Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in the

interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTRXXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station, [irregular pagination]. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).

Hendee, J.C.; Stankey, G.H.; Lucas, R.C. 1990. Wilderness management. 2d ed. Fulcrum Press: Golden,

CO. 645 p.

Hessburg, P.R; Mitchell, R.G.; Filip, G.M. 1994. Historical and current roles of insects and pathogens in

eastern Oregon and Washington forested landscapes. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-327. Portland OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 p. (Everett,

Richard L., team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team

leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment).

191
Huff, Mark H.; Ottmar, Roger D.; Alvaado, Ernesto [and others]. 1995- Historical and current forest

landscapes in eastern Oregon and Washington. Part II: Linking vegetation characteristics to potential

fire behavior and related smoke production. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-355. Portland, OR: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 43 p. (Everett, Richard

L., team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul E, science team leader and

tech. Ed., Volume III: assessment).

(INFISH) Inland Native Fish Strategy. 1995. Environmental assessment: decision notice and finding of

no significant impact. Interim Strategies for managing fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon

and Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions of Nevada. [Place of publication unknown]:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific Northwest

Regions, [irregular pagination].

Irwin, Larry L.; Cook, John G.; Riggs, Robert A.; Skovlin, Jon M. 1994. Effects of long-term grazing by

big game and livestock in the Blue Mountains forest ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-325.

Portland OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 49

p. (Everett, Richard L., team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul E,

science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment).

Jackson, PL.; Kimerling, A.J., eds. 1993. Adas of the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State

University Press. 152 p.

Jensen, M.E.; Bourgeron, P.S., tech. eds. 1994. Volume II: Ecosystem management: principles and

applications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318. Portland OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 376 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader;

Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment).

Jensen, M. E.; Goodman, Iris; Brewer, Kenneth C. [and others]. 1996. Chapter 2:Biophysical environments of the Basin. In: Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. An assessment of ecosystem

components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, [irregular pagination]. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).

Johnson, K.L.; Beale, C.L. 1995. Nonmetropolitan recreational counties: identification and fiscal concerns. Working paper No. 6, Demographic change and fiscal stress project. Chicago, IL: Loyola

University Chicago. 14 p.

Johnson, Charles G.; Clausnitzer, Rodrick R.; Mehringer, Peter J.; Oliver, Chadwick D. 1994. Biotic and

abiotic processes of eastside ecosystems: the effects of management on plant and community ecology,

and on stand and landscape vegetation dynamics. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-322. Portland OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 66 p. (Everett,

Richard L., team leader, Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul E, science team

leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment).

Joyce, Linda A. 1989. An analysis of the range forage situation in the United States: 1989-2040. Gen.

Tech. Rep. GTR-RM-180. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 137 p.

Knight, F.H. 1921. Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co. 381 p.

192
Krannich, R.S.; Carroll, M.S.; Daniels, S.E.; Walker, G.B. 1994. Incorporating social assessment and

public involvement processes into ecosystem-based resource management: applications to the Eastside

Ecosystem Management Project. Background report, [not paged].

Lee, Danny C; Sedell, James R.; Rieman, Bruce E.; and others. 1996. Chapter 4:Broadscale assessment of

aquatic species and habitats. In: Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. An assessment of ecosystem

components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, [irregular pagination]. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Hessburg, PR; Everett, R.L.; Huff, M.H.; Ottmar, R.D.1994. Historical and current

forest landscapes of eastern Oregon and Washington. Part I: vegetation pattern and insect and disease

hazard. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-328. Portland OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 88 p. (Everett, Richard L., team leader; Eastside forest

ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul E, science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment).

Lowe, John E. 1993- Letter dated August 18 to Forest Supervisors, Eastside Forests. On file with: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Marcot, Bruce. 1996. Terrestrial integrity within the Interior Columbia Basin. Manuscript [in prep]. On

file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land

Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA

99362.

Marcot, Bruce G.; Castellano, Mike; Christy, John; [and others]. 1996. Chapter 5:Terrestrial ecology of

the Basin. In: Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in the

interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTRXXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station, [irregular pagination]. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).

Marcot, Bruce G.; Wisdom, Michael J.; Li, Hiram W; Castillo, Gonzalo C.1994. Managing for featured,

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and unique habitats for ecosystem sustainability. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-329. Portland OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 39 p. (Everett, Richard L., team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health

assessment; Hessburg, Paul F, science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment).

Marcot, B.G.; Murphy, D.D. [in press]. Population viability analysis and management. In: Szaro, R., ed.

Biodiversity in managed landscapes: theory and practice. Conference Proceedings. July 13-17, 1992;

Sacramento, CA. New York: Oxford University Press.

McCool, Stephen E; Burchfield, J.A.; Allen, Stewart. 1996. Chapter 7: Social Assessment of the Basin. In:

Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior

Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,

[irregular pagination]. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project: Scientific Assessment).

193
McCool, Stephen F; Haynes, Richard W. 1996. Projecting population change in the Interior Columbia

River basin. Res. Note. PNW-RN-519. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 14 p.

McGinnis, W.J.; Christensen, H.H. [in press]. The interior Columbia River basin: patterns of population,

employment, and income change. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-358. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 43 p.

Mclntosh, Bruce A.; Sedell, James R.; Smith, Jeanette E., [and others]. 1994. Management history of

eastside ecosystems: changes in fish habitat over 50 years, 1935 to 1992. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR321. Portland OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 55 p. (Everett, Richard L, team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg,

Paul E, science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment).

McKee, B. 1972. Cascadia: the geologic evolution of the Pacific Northwest. New York: McGraw-Hill.

394 p.

Oliver, Chadwick D.; Irwin, Larry L; Knapp, Walter H. 1994. Eastside forest management practices:

historical overview, extent of their application, and their effects on sustainability of ecosystems. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-324. Portland OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 73 p. (Everett, Richard L., team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health

assessment; Hessburg, Paul E, science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment).

O'Neill, R.V.; DeAngelis, D.L.; Waide, J.B.; Allen, T.E.H. 1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 253 p.

(PACFISH) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of

Land Management. 1994. Draft environmental assessment. Interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds on Federal lands in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and

Portions of California. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, [irregular pagination].

(PACFISH) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of

Land Management. 1995. Decision Notice/Decision Record, FONSI, EA, Appendices for the Interim

Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington,

Idaho, and Portions of California. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

and U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, [irregular pagination].

Pfister, R.D.; Kovalchik, B.L.; Arno, S.F; Presby, R.C. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-GTR-34. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station. 174 p.

Powell, Douglas S.; Faulkner, Joanne L.; Darr, David R., [and others]. 1993. Forest Resources of the

United, 1992. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-234. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 132 p.

Power, T.W. 1994. Extraction and the Environment: the economic battle to control our natural landscapes. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Draft, [not paged].

194
Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. An assessment of ecosystem Components in the interior

Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,

[irregular pagination]. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project: Scientific Assessment).

Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J.; Graham, Russell T. 1996a. Chapter 1: Introduction. In: Quigley, Thomas

M., Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia

basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, [irregular pagination]. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project:

Scientific Assessment).

Quigley, Thomas M.; Lee, Kristine M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996b. Evaluation of EIS Alternatives

by the Science Integration Team. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, [irregular pagination]. (Quigley,

Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).

Reynolds, R.T.; Graham, R.T.; Reiser, M.H. [and others]. 1992. Management recommendations for the

northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-217. Fort Collins,

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90 p.

Rieman, Bruce E.; Mclntyre, John D. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of

bull trout. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-302. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Research Station, [not paged].

Robbins, William G.; Wolf, Donald W. 1994. Landscape and the intermontane northwest: an environmental history. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-319. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 32 p. (Everett, Richard L., team leader; Eastside

forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F, science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III:

assessment).

Ross, Sylvia H.; Savage, Carl N. 1967. Idaho earth science. Moscow, Idaho: Idaho Bureau of Mines. 217 p.

Schwantes, C.A. 1991. The Pacific Northwest: an interpretive history. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 427 p.

Sedell, James R.; Lee, Danny, C; Hessburg, Paul F, [and others], [in prep.]. Ecologicalintegrity in the

Interior Columbia Basin. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management, 112

E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Skovlin, Jon M.; Thomas, Jack Ward. 1995. Interpreting long-term trends in Blue Mountain ecosystems

from repeat photography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-315. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 102 p.

Smith, G.R. 1978. Biogeography of Intermountain fishes. In: Wood, Steven L., ed. Great basin naturalist

memoirs: Intermountain biogeography: a symposium. [Date of symposium unknown], [place of

symposium unknown]. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Printing Service. 17-42.

195
Soule, M.E. 1987. Introduction. In: Soule, M.E., ed. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge,

MA: Cambridge University Press: 1-10.

Steele, R.; Pfister, R.D.; Ryder, R.A; Kittams, J.A. 1981. Forest habitat types of central Idaho. Gen. Tech.

Rep. INT-GTR-114. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 138 p.

Switzwer, J.V. 1994. Environmental politics. New York: St. Martins Press. 380 p.

Thomas, Jack Ward. 1994. Course to the future: this time, our moment in history, our future. Speech

delivered to the Forest Service Leadership Meeting, 20-23 June 1994, Houston, TX. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 15 p.

Treyz, G.I. 1993- Regional economic modeling: a systematic approach to economic forecasting. Boston,

MA Kluwer. 506 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1993. Survey of Current Business. Vol.

73, Number 12.

U.S. Department of Interior; U.S. Geological Survey. 1982. The channeled scablands of eastern Washington: the geologic story of the Spokane flood. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 25

PU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Box Scores. Endangered Species Bulletin. [Jan, Feb] 21

(1).

U.S. Government. 1994a. Rules and regulations. Federal Register. 59 (Feb. 1, 1994):26624. [revised May

23, 1994]. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Government. 1994b. Rules and regulations. Endangered and Threatened wildlife lists. (August 20,

1994). 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12, in part dealing with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, endangered and

threatened wildlife; notice of special reprint. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.

(U.S. GPO:1994 380-789/20165).

U.S. Government. 1994c. Rules and regulations. Federal Register. 59 (Dec. 7, 1994):63071. Washington,

D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Government. 1996. Rules and regulations. Federal Register. 61 (40):7457 (Feb. 28, 1996). 50 CFR

17, in part dealing with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, endangered and threatened species; notice of

reclassification of 96 candidate taxa. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR § 219.17(g); 219.19; 219.26.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 91-190. [S 1075], National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

(NEPA). Act of Jan. 1, 1970. [An act to establish a national policy for the environment, to provide for

the establishment of a Council of Environmental Quality, and for other purposes.] In: United States

statutes at large, 1969. 42 U.S.C. § 4231, et seq. (1970). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office: 852-856. Vol. 83.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 93-205. Endangered Species Act of 1973. (ESA). Act of Dec. 28,

1973. 16 U.S.C. 1531-1536, 1538-1540.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 93-378. Forest Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of

1974. (RPA). Act of August 17, 1974. 16 U.S.C. 1601 (note).

196
U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 94-579. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

(FLPMA). Act of Oct.21, 1976. 43 U.S.C 1701 (note).

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 94-588. National Forest Management Act of 1976. (NFMA). Act of

Oct. 22, 1976. 16 U.S.C. 1600 (1976).

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc.; Public Law 104-19. FY 1995 Appropriations Act (§ 2001 Emergency Salvage

Timber Sale Program). Act of July 27, 1995.

Wickium, D.; Davies, R. W. 1995. Ecosystem health and integrity? Canadian Journal of Botany. 73:997-

1000.

Wissmar, Robert C; Smith, Jeanette E.; Mclntosh, Bruce A., [and others]. Reeves, Gordon H.; Sedell,

James R. 1994. Ecological health of river basins in forested regions of eastern Washington and Oregon.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-326. Portland OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 65 p. (Everett, Richard L., team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem

health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment).

Woodley, Stephen; Day, James; Francis, George. 1993. Ecological integrity and the management of

ecosystems. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press. 220 p.

Wright, John W. ed. 1994. The Universal Almanac. Kansas City, New York: Andrews and McMeel.

197
CHARTER

Eastside Ecosystem

Management Project

112 East Poplar Street

Walla Walla, Washington 99362

phone: (509) 522-4030

Appendix A-199
Reply to: BLM: 1736 Date: Jan. 21, 1994

FS: 1400,1900

Subject: Eastside Ecosystem Management Strategy Charter

To: BLM: State Directors, OR/WA, ID, MT

FS: Regional Foresters, R-1, R-4,

R-6 Station Directors, PNW, INT/RM

In May 1993, a team led by Forest Service scientist Dr. Richard Everett completed an

"Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment." In July, as part of his plan for ecosystem

management in the Pacific Northwest, President Clinton directed "the Forest Service to

develop a scientifically sound and ecosystem-based strategy for management of eastside

forests", and further stated that the "strategy" should be based on the forest health study

recently completed by agency scientists as well as other studies. To further elaborate and

extend this charge, we are jointly directing that an ecosystem management framework and

assessment be developed for lands administered by the Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) on those lands east of the Cascade crest in Washington and

Oregon and within the interior Columbia River Basin (CRB).

We have jointly decided that the processes outlined in the Interim CRB

Assessment and Eastside Ecosystems Management Strategy Project Charter

are essential steps leading to sound management decisions. We, and our

respective line officers, will use the science products (framework,

assessment, and evaluation of alternative EM Strategies) derived from

this process as input into our decision making processes. Line officers

within the BLM and FS will develop management direction using the science products as

a portion of the total input considered in developing such direction.

We have been motivated to request these products because management of the public

resources within the interior CRB require new direction that is based on ecosystem

concepts within the context of the larger Basin. Recent advances in our understanding of

ecosystem principles, cumulative effects, biophysical interactions, and concerns of

ecosystem integrity and species viability, point to the need to undertake the studies

outlined in the Charter. Since current land and resource plans were signed, new

information and changing conditions require a re-evaluation of management direction.

Appettdix A-200
Therefore, updated management directions are needed for the Eastside National Forests

and some lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. From an ecosystem

standpoint, an overall assessment is needed for the interior Columbia River Basin, so that

management decisions can be made within this larger context.

Recognizing that ecosystems encompass lands that cross jurisdictions, and actions taken

on lands administered by one agency affect outcomes on lands administered by another,

there must be shared vision, commitment, and leadership among agencies in

development of ecosystem management strategies and their implementation. The Forest

Service is to take the lead responsibility in assembling the appropriate interagency

structures and processes to accomplish this assignment. This includes invitations to State

governors and tribal government leaders, local governments, key interested parties and

affected parties, and other Federal and State agencies to participate in the process.

As part of this assignment, Jeff Blackwood, Forest Supervisor on the Umatilla National

Forest, will assume the responsibilities of Project Manager for the project. Patrick Geehan

will be the BLM Project Coordinator. Thomas M. Quigley, Manager, Blue Mountains

Natural Resources Institute, will be the Science Team Leader, and George Pozzuto,

District Ranger on the Lake Wenatchee Ranger District, will be the EIS Team Leader.

Patty Burel, Public Affairs Officer for the Blue Mountain Narural Resource Institute, will

be the Communications Team Leader. Kay Pennel and Cathy Weise will provide

administrative support. Teams and activities will be located in Walla Walla, Washington.

Team leaders will need your cooperation and support in filling needed positions and

completing the project.

As further direction, we refer to several key points made by Assistant Secretary James

Lyons in announcing the intent of the Forest Service to develop a new management

strategy for national forests in eastern Oregon and Washington. The strategy will:

• be based on ecosystem management concepts;

• focus on restoring the health of forest ecosystems;

• be scientifically sound and ecosystem based;

• be based on the forest health study recently completed by agency scientists

and other studies;

• be a multi-agency effort involving the public in an open process; and

• link with the development of a draft environmental impact statement to be

completed by spring or summer of 1994.

Development of a scientifically sound and ecosystem-based management strategy for

eastern Oregon and Washington will require (1) a framework for ecosystem management

for the entire interior Columbia River Basin, and (2) a broad assessment of ecosystem

processes and functions, species, social systems, and economic systems within the Basin.

Appendix A-201
This should lead to the development of an EIS useful to both the Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management that would result in decisions for implementing the strategy.

The EIS would include the development of a wide array of alternative strategies for eastern

Oregon and Washington and an evaluation of the consequences of each alternative based

on the best technical and scientific information available. The EIS will be presented to the

responsible federal decisionmakers for appropriate action.

Upon completion of each product, line officers within the Forest Service and BLM will

consider the recommendations and make decisions to modify or retain existing

management direction. The ultimate decision to adopt or reject the recommendations

resides with us and our appropriate line officers. We will use the scientific information to

enhance our understanding of trade-offs, interactions, consequences, and potential

results. We will be issuing decision documents, policy statements, and other policy

direction as we deem appropriate through the life of the Charter and following its

completion.

Attached is the initial charter and summary of products we expect the team to produce

over the next 9-12 months.

/s/ lack Ward Thomas /s/ lim Baca

JACK WARD THOMAS JIM BACA

Chief, Forest Service Director, USDI Bureau of Land

Management

Appendix A-202
INTERIOR COLUMBIA BASIN ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

FRAMEWORK AND ASSESSMENT

and

EASTSIDE OREGON AND WASHINGTON

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PROJECT CHARTER

"Eastside Ecosystem Management Project

Charter"

Definitions

"Interior Columbia River Basin" includes lands in the continental United States tributary to

the Columbia River east of the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range. For purposes of this

Charter, the terms "Basin-wide" and "Basin" are interchangeable with "Interior Columbia

River Basin". This will include portions of Forest Service Regions 1,4, & 6 and portions of

lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Oregon, Washington,

Idaho, and Montana.

"Eastside," in this charter, refers to the National Forests and appropriate BLM administered

lands in eastern Washington and Oregon lying east of the crest of the Cascade Mountain

Range. This may also include lands managed by other federal agencies within this

geographic area.

Appendix A-203
Situation

Since forest plans were established in eastern Washington and Oregon in 1989 and 1990,

a number of scientific and administrative studies have been conducted generating new

information relevant to National Forest management. In July 1993, as part of his plan for

ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest, President Clinton directed "the Forest

Service to develop a scientifically sound and ecosystem-based strategy for management of

eastside forests," and further stated that the "strategy" should be based on the forest health

study recently completed by agency scientists as well as other studies.

The Forest Service and BLM are considering implementing the interim direction to

conserve Pacific Salmon throughout their range in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and

California. This interim direction will be followed by development of a long-term

management strategy to address this issue in these states as well as Alaska. This Charter

identifies, as a minimum, initial studies and plans appropriate to implement the

Anadromous Fish Habitat and Watershed Conservation Strategy (formally called

"PACFISH") within the interior Columbia River Basin.

The combined tasks of developing an ecosystem management strategy and implementing

the Anadromous Fish Habitat and Watershed Conservation Strategy, necessitate an overall

framework to guide planning for ecosystem management within the Interior Columbia

River Basin. Additionally, a Basin-wide scientific assessment is needed. It should

examine the ecologic, economic, and social systems, looking at current as well as historic

conditions, and the probability that outcomes associated with current practices and trends

will result in change within the systems it will provide essential information for evaluating

and implementing ecosystem management within the Basin.

Ecosystems transcend administrative boundaries. The evaluations undertaken will use

available data where appropriate or applicable. This effort is not intended to request new

data from private land owners, enter their lands, or otherwise establish direction for

management of those lands.

Project Expectations

Implementing an ecosystem management strategy will require the development of several

products. Two initial studies will include a Basin-wide scientific framework and a

Basin-wide scientific assessment. The interior Columbia River Basin (CRB) ecosystem

management scientific framework will provide the broad concepts and analytical

processes recommended for ecosystem analysis, planning, and management. The interior

CRB scientific assessment will examine historic and current ecologic, economic, and

social systems and discuss probable outcomes if current management practices and trends

continue.

Appendix A-204
Drawing from the concepts and principles of the Basin-wide scientific framework and

information from the Basin-wide scientific assessment and the environmental impact

statement (EIS) scoping response, an EIS will be developed for the eastside National

Forests that will array a variety of ecosystem management strategies for management of

lands administered by the Forest Service and a portion of the Bureau of Land Management

lands in eastern Oregon and Washington. The EIS will, as a minimum, address the

Anadromous Fish Habitat and Watershed Conservation Strategy recommendations. This

EIS will be supported by a scientific evaluation of the issues and alternatives identified by

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) scoping and public involvement process.

The decision document(s) resulting will address the management of affected BLM and

Forest Service managed lands. It is anticipated that similar decision documents will be

issued in Idaho and portions of California, although the nature of the decisions in addition

to the Anadromous Fish Habitat and Watershed Conservation Strategy for those states has

not yet been determined. The Anadromous Fish Habitat and Watershed Conservation

Strategy will be considered in Forest plan revisions and BLM resource management plans

in Alaska. The decision documents and processes for those states will be done in a

coordinated manner among the Regions and Districts involved. Through these activities,

a Basin-wide framework for ecosystem management and a Basin-wide assessment of

resource conditions should result in a comprehensive, coordinated approach to resource

management within the Basin.

The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are proceeding as outlined in this

Charter with the full expectation of bringing in other federal agencies (for example,

Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries

Service, and Soil Conservation Service) as cooperators in the process.

The EIS process proposed in this Charter will provide a basis for the Forest Service and

BLM to make decisions to amend or revise current land management plans for ecosystem

management strategies on the National Forests and participating Bureau of Land

Management lands of eastern Oregon and Washington. It is assumed that scientific

expertise will be assembled from a wide array of disciplines, agencies, universities, and

other organizations to evaluate the issues and alternatives.

The role of the scientists in this regard is to assess, based on the best information

available, the tradeoffs, consequences, outcomes, and interactions that are associated

with each alternative. It is the Federal EIS team members' role to develop the array of

alternatives and to critically review the science products for possible use within the EIS.

Any land management decisions based upon the EIS will be made by the appropriate line

officers in BLM and the Forest Service.

Appendix A -20 5
Key Participants and Roles

Chief, USDA Forest Service, and Director, Bureau of Land Management: Authorize an

Executive Steering Committee to oversee the processes outlined in the Charter. Any

subsequent changes to the Charter will be with the concurrence of the Chief and the

Director.

Columbia Basin WO Coordinators: Director, Land Management Planning, Forest Service,

and the Science Advisor to the Director, Washington Office, BLM, shall receive progress

reports and arrange for resolution of issues that exceed the scope of the Charter.

Columbia Basin Executive Steering Committee: Shall oversee the implementation of the

Charter, monitor and report progress, propose needed amendments, ensure other

appropriate participants are involved in its implementation, propose resolution to issues

within the Charter, elevate issues and suggested resolutions to the Chief and Director for

resolutions. The Executive Committee shall include:

Regional Forester, R-6 Regional Forester, R-1

Regional Forester, R-4 Station Director, PNW

Station Director, RM/INT State BLM Director, Oregon-Washington

State BLM Director, Idaho State BLM Director, Montana

The Executive Steering Committee will solicit the participation of other potential partners

(e.g., National Marine Fisheries Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental

Protection Agency, and Soil Conservation Service). They will be added to the Executive

Committee as appropriate through amendment to this Charter.

Eastside Project Managers: Are responsible to the Executive Steering Committee for

accomplishing the actions and products outlined in the Charter. The Project Manager is

Jeff Blackwood; Science Team Leader is Thomas M. Quigley; and the Bureau of Land

Management Project Coordinator is Patrick Geehan.

Coordination with States, Tribal Governments, and Key Interested Parties

An essential element of this process will be to coordinate with, and seek involvement of,

affected State governors and tribal government leaders. In addition, local governments,

key interested and affected parties, and other federal and state agencies will also be

encouraged to participate.

Appendix A-206
Key Actions, Products and Timelines

Updated management directions are needed for the Eastside National Forests and lands

administered by the Bureau of Land Management. Since current land and resource plans

were signed, new information and changing conditions suggest a re-evaluation of

management direction. From an ecosystem standpoint, an overall assessment is needed

for the interior Columbia River Basin, so that management decisions can be made within

this larger context. All products developed from this charter will be presented to the

responsible federal decisionmakers. The expected actions, timelines, and products for the

Columbia Basin Project are summarized below. The Eastside Project Managers will take

the lead in developing the four primary products under the direction of the Executive

Steering Committee. Primary direction for the Eastside EIS and Scientific Evaluation of

alternative ecosystem management strategies will be provided by a subgroup of the

Executive Steering Committee consisting of the R-6 Regional Forester, PNW Station

Director, and State BLM Director for Oregon and Washington.

(1) SCIENTIFIC FRAMEWORK FOR ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT IN THE INTERIOR

COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN

Objective:

Develop an ecosystem management framework that includes principles and

processes which may be used in a NEPA process to develop management

direction for federal agency ecosystem analysis, planning, and management

at all levels within the Basin. Concepts and principles from the framework

will link to subsequent products.

Framework Components:

The framework will be based on an ecosystem approach to management

with emphasis on biological and human ecosystems. It will examine the

interrelationships of the biophysical, social, and economic systems. It will

consider public expectations, management capabilities,

biological/ecological capabilities, science processes, and current scientific

literature (e.g., Eastside Forest Health Assessment, the product of the Forest

Ecosystem Management Team (FEMAT), Eastside Forests Scientific Society

Panel Report, and other material). The result will be principles and

processes that can be used to develop management direction (consistent

with NEPA, National Forest Management Act (NFMA), Federal Land Policy

Appendix A-207
(1) SCIENTIFIC FRAMEWORK FOR ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT IN THE INTERIOR

COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN (continued)

and Management Act (FLPMA), and applicable laws) for planning ecosystem

management at all levels on federal public lands within the interior

Columbia Basin.

These preliminary planning actions will identify the scale, coarse filters, viability and risk

assessments, economic and social assessments, monitoring and evaluation, technology

needs, and public participation processes that may be useful in implementing ecosystem

management on these lands within the Basin.

Framework Product and Timeline:

A Basin-wide scientific framework for ecosystem management on lands

administered by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in the

form of a scientific, peer-reviewed document that will be made available for

public comment prior to final publication. It provides recommendations on

linking science processes and products with planning on Federal lands. It is

not a decision document. The draft scientific framework will take

approximately 3 months from the date the Charter is effective.

(2) SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT IN THE INTERIOR

COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN

Objective:

The broad scientific assessment of the resources within the interior

Columbia River Basin will characterize and assess landscape, ecosystem,

social, and economic processes and functions and describe probable

outcomes of continued management practices and trends. It will identify

the primary social and ecologic values and functions that will be addressed

through the additional planning and implementation processes outlined

within the ecosystem management framework for the Basin. Information

generated through this assessment will be used, as a minimum, in the NEPA

process which will be conducted to provide a basis for management

direction to modify and implement the Anadromous Fish Habitat and

•Watershed Conservation Strategy within the Basin.

Appendix A-208
(2) SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT IN THE INTERIOR

COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN (continued)

Scientific Assessment Components:

The broad scientific assessment of the natural resources within the interior

Columbia Basin will characterize and assess landscape, ecosystem, social,

cultural, and economic processes and functions. The assessment will

describe relationships within and among ecologic, social, cultural, and

economic systems and interpret effects of past human interactions. Primary

components of the evaluation will include:

a. landscape, economic, cultural, and social characterization;

b. identify the probability that change may occur in the components of

diversity (landscape, ecosystem processes and functions, species);

c. identify social, cultural, and economic systems;

d. identify emerging issues that relate to ecosystem management within the

Basin;

e. identify the social and cultural values of natural resources.

f. identify technology gaps, research needs and opportunities to advance

the state of knowledge.

Assessment Product and Timeline:

A Basin-wide narrative report on the ecologic, economic, cultural, and social

systems, describing the relationship within and among systems while interpreting

effects of past human interactions. In addition, a research, development, and

application plan will be developed to fill knowledge gaps and advance

technology. This will be published as a scientific, peer-reviewed document in a

format useful to other public and private land managers and policy makers. The

draft scientific assessment will take approximately 9 months from the date the

Charter is effective. The Assessment will be made available for public comment

prior to finalizing. This is not a decision document.

Appendix A-209
(3) EASTSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Objective:

Develop an Eastside EIS proposing a broad array of alternative strategies that

encompasses up to 10 eastside Washington and Oregon National Forests

and portions of 4 BLM Districts. The EIS process will be consistent with the

principles of the scientific ecosystem framework, incorporate information

from the scientific assessment of the interior Columbia River Basin, and

draw from the scientific evaluation described below. The scope of the EIS

will include, as a minimum, all lands administered by the Forest Service east

of the Cascade crest in the states of Oregon and Washington. It will also

include eastside Bureau of Land Management lands within the existing

range of the Pacific Salmon, forested lands, and bull trout habitat. The EIS

process must include an open scoping process with the public.

EIS Components:

A NEPA scoping process will be used to identify issues. From that scoping

and other information, a range of management alternatives will be

developed that integrates considerations of sustained long-term economic,

social, and ecological values of the region and issues identified in scoping.

Analysis of alternatives for managing forest and rangelands will consider the

Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment, recommendations of the

Eastside Forests1 Scientific Society Panel, and other information. A broad

array of potential strategies will be developed. This array should reflect

societal expectations for public lands within the planning area.

As a minimum, each alternative will take into account the following factors:

• effects on cultural, historic, and current public uses and values,

including scenic quality, recreation, subsistence, and tourism;

• concepts of adaptive management;

• effects on environmental and ecological values, including air and water

quality, habitat conservation, sustainability, threatened and endangered

species, biodiversity, and long-term productivity;

• jobs attributable to natural resource management, both commodity and

non-commodity oriented, including jobs attributable to investment and

restoration associated with each alternative;

Appendix A-210
(3) EASTSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (continued)

• economic and social effects on local communities and other

governments including tribes, and effects on revenues to counties and

the national treasury;

• economic and social effects associated with the protection and use of

forest resources that might aid in transition of the Region's industries and

communities to sustainable economies;

• economic and social benefits from ecological services within each

alternative;

• regional, national, and international effects as they relate to timber

supply, wood product prices, and other key economic and social

variables;

• practicality of and barriers to implementation.

EIS Product and Timeline:

A legally sufficient EIS developed through an open public process from which a

Record of Decision can be developed that may include adjustments to land and

resource plans. The draft Eastside EIS will take approximately 9-12 months from

the date the Charter is effective. The final EIS will follow as soon as public review

and evaluation is complete. From the final EIS, a Record of Decision can then be

issued by the responsible federal decision maker.
(4) EASTSIDE ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF

PLANNING ALTERNATIVES

Objective:

The Eastside Ecosystem Management Evaluation is a scientific evaluation of

issues and alternatives identified through the NEPA scoping process for the

Eastside EIS. This evaluation will be done in conjunction with an analysis

of the effects of implementation on tribal values and rights. It will address

the practicality of implementation of each alternative strategy.

Evaluation Components:

The evaluation should analyze each alternative in terms useful for analysis

of costs and benefits, to the extent possible, and consider, as a minimum,

the criteria listed under the EIS component of this charter.

The evaluation will be based on concepts documented in the ecosystem

framework with consideration for maintenance and restoration of biological

diversity, particularly that of late-successional and old-growth forest

ecosystems; maintenance of long-term productivity; maintenance of

sustainable levels of renewable natural resources, including timber, other

forest products, grazing, fish, and other resource-related values of forests

and rarigelands; and maintenance of rural economies and communities. To

the extent possible, the evaluations will link the biological, cultural, social,

and economic concerns at each hierarchical scale.

Outcomes associated with each alternative should be evaluated relative to

maintaining and/or restoring productivity, maintaining economic, social,

and cultural systems, and maintaining and/or restoring forest and rangeland

resources (commodity and non-commodity). The levels of protection,

investment, and use that will be necessary to achieve the stated outcomes

for each alternative will be described.

The evaluation should provide an integrated landscape characterization

within a structural data base. This should include terrestrial and aquatic

systems and, to the extent possible, social and cultural systems.

The evaluation should include implementing adaptive management within

an ecosystem framework. The specific linkages to research, inventory,

monitoring, and other ownerships should be highlighted, and ways should

be discussed for transitioning to adaptive management.

Appendix A-212
(4) EASTSIDE ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF

PLANNING ALTERNATIVES (continued)

The evaluation will consider long-term ecosystem health. It will carefully

examine the role that natural processes and human activities have played in

shaping the eastside ecosystems, landscape patterns; patch sizes, productive

potentials, and resource changes. It will consider the variability nature has

provided through these disturbance and change elements, the implications

these elements have on sustainable long-term ecosystems, and ways

disturbances and change can be accounted for in the overall management

scheme. Also it will examine the alternative means by which disturbance

elements can be mimicked on the landscape and the role these

management activities might play providing ecological and social benefits.

In addressing biological diversity, consideration should not be limited to

any one species and, to the extent possible, each alternative should be

assessed for long-term management against viability. On eastside spotted

owl Forests, the assessment should examine alternative measures to

maintain spotted owl habitat within the FEMAT framework on those areas

where such habitat is temporally highly dynamic and may be lost to natural

successional and disturbance processes.

The evaluation will consider social and cultural diversity as well as

elements of ecological diversity. Changes in social and cultural diversity

associated with shifts in resource flows, availabilities, access, and

conditions will be specifically addressed. Probable impacts on lifestyles,

social interactions, and interdependencies will be described.

Appendix A-213
(4) EASTSIDE ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF

PLANNING ALTERNATIVES (continued)

Product and Timeline:

A scientific peer-reviewed document evaluating the effects of implementing

a variety of ecosystem management strategies on eastside National Forests.

The draft scientific evaluation will be available for consideration by the

Eastside EIS Team about 9 months from the date this charter is effective. It is

anticipated the EIS Team will consider the Scientific Evaluation along with

other information it considers relevant to preparing the draft EIS. This

evaluation is not a decision document - it is a scientific evaluation of the

effects of implementing the various ecosystem management strategies. It

will be made available for review.

/s/ lack Ward Thomas /s/ lim Baca

JACK WARD THOMAS JIM BACA

Chief, Director,

USDA Forest Service USDI Bureau of Land

Management

Appendix A-214
APPENDIX B.

ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY AND SOCIOECONOMIC

RESILIENCY RATINGS BY SUBBASIN AND COUNTY.

This Appendix presents the subbasin ecological integrity ratings for each of the component systems (forest, rangeland, aquatic, rangeland hydrology, and forest hydrology) as well as the composite integrity

rating. Each of the 164 subbasins was rated for aquatic and composite ecological integrity. Ecological

integrity ratings were developed for forest (range) systems if the subbasin had at least 20 percent of its area

in forested (range) vegetation types. Subbasins were grouped into clusters based on similarities in ecological conditions and characteristics. Clusters were developed for forested systems and rangeland systems.

Figure B-l shows the distribution of the subbasins within the Basin and figure B-2 shows the distribution

of the counties within the Basin.

Table B-l contains the integrity ratings for each subbasin, and they are also identified by name and number. See Sedell and others (in preparation) for details on how these ratings were determined. Briefly,

integrity ratings reflect the relative level of ecological functions and processes that are present and operating within a subbasin, relative to the Basin. Thus, relative to the Basin as a whole, a subbasin with high

ecological integrity would have more ecological functions and processes effective than a subbasin with a

low rating. Proxies were used to estimate such elements of integrity as: consistency of tree stocking level

with long-term disturbance processes; amount and distribution of exotic species; absence or presence of

wildfire and its effect on composition and pattern of forest types; changes in fire severity and frequency

from historical (pre-1800s) to the present; expansion of woodlands into herblands and shrublands; disruption of hydrologic regimes; and, the full expression of potential life histories. Composite integrity

ratings reflect the ecological integrity of the subbasin based on its component integrity.

Table B-2 contains the assignment of counties (fig. B-2) by typology and resiliency ratings for each

county. See Haynes and Horne (in press) for details of how these ratings were developed. Briefly, the

economic resiliency ratings were developed where high, medium, and low resiliency meant that a county

was in the top, middle, or bottom third of the counties nationally, based on employment diversity. Social

resiliency was defined using population density and how a county ranked relative to the average for the

Basin and the United States. Lifestyle diversity was defined by the top, middle, and bottom thirds of the

counties in the Basin. Socioeconomic resiliency was defined as the linear summation of the ratings

(where the ratings were converted to point scores) for economic and social resiliency, and lifestyle diversity. High, medium, and low ratings were assigned based on ranges of point scores.

Table B-3 contains the long-term trends in risks to ecological integrity for each subbasin by management

option. See Quigley and others (1996) for details of how these ratings were developed. Briefly, long-term

trends in ecological integrity were developed for each management option based on a set of indices reflecting forest and rangeland vegetation, riparian management, and management of road densities. Values

assigned reflect either decreasing (-1), stable (0), or increasing (+1) trends for each index. Composite

trends represent the summation of the three indices for each subbasin. Thus, composite trends ranged in

value from -3 to +3. Trends in risks to ecological integrity were estimated using a rule set that related

population density to forest, non-forest, and agricultural wildland vegetation groups. Generally, higher

risk was associated with forested vegetation groups and areas of high population density.

Appendix B-215
Haynes, Richard W.; Home, Amy L. 1996. Chapter 6: Economic Assessment of the Interior Columbia

Basin. In: Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the

Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTRXXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station, [irregular pagination]. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).

Quigley, Thomas M.; Lee, Kris; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the

Science Integration Team. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, [irregular pagination]. (Quigley,

Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).

Sedell, Jim; Lee, Danny; Hessburg, Paul [and others] [in prep.]. Ecological integrity in the Interior

Columbia Basin. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management, 112 E.

Poplar, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Appendix B-216
Table B-l—Integrity ratings for each subbasin within the Interior Columbia Basin Project areaID #

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

Subbasin

Name

Alvord Lake

American Falls

Banks Lake

Beaver-Camas

Beaver-South Fork

Big Lost

Big Wood

Birch

Bitterroot

Blackfoot

Blackfoot

Boise-Mores

Brownlee Reservoir

Bruneau

Bully

Burnt

Butte

C. J. Strike Reservoir

Camas

Chief Joseph

Clearwater

Coeur d'Alene Lake

Colville

Crooked-Rattlesnake

Donner Und Blitzen

East Little Owyhee

Fisher

Flathead Lake

Flint-Rock

Franklin D.Roosevelt Lake

Goose

Goose Lake

Greys-Hobock

Gros Ventre

Guano

Hangman

Harney-Malheur Lakes

Hells Canyon

Idaho Falls

Imnaha

Jordan

Kettle

Klickitat

Lake Abert

Lake Chelan

Lake Walcott

Lemhi

—Cluster #---

Forest

6

6

6

3

3

5

6

5

5

6

3

4

6

4

4

2

6

5

1

1

6

2

2

4

3

5

1

2

Range

5

6

4

6

1

5

6

5

3

3

6

3

5

5

6

6

3

6

6

4

3

3

6

5

5

3

3

3

5

1

5

3

6

3

6

2

6

5

6

3

3

6

2

6

5

Integrity Ratings

Forest

M

H

H

M

M

L

M

L

L

M

L

L

L

L

L

M

L

L

H

H

L

M

M

L

L

M

H

H

Range

M

L

L

L

L

M

M

M

L

M

M

L

L

L

M

L

M

L

H

L

L

H

M

L

M

L

L

L

L

L

M

Aquatic

M

L

L

L

L

L

M

L

M

M

M

L

L

M

L

L

L

L

L

L

M

L

L

L

M

L

L

L

H

L

L

M

H

H

M

L

L

H

L

H

L

L

H

L

M

L

M

Hydrology

(Forest)

L

H

M

M

L

M

L

L

H

L

L

L

M

L

M

M

M

L

L

H

H

L

H

H

L

M

H

H

M

Hydrology

(Range)

L

M

H

H

L

H

M

L

M

H

H

M

H

M

L

L

L

L

H

H

L

L

L

H

L

Composite

Ecological

M

L

L

L

L

L

L

M

M

M

L

L

L

M

L

L

L

L

L

L

M

L

L

M

M

M

L

L

H

L

M

L

H

H

M

L

L

M

L

H

M

L

M

L

H

L

H

Appendix B-217
ID#

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

Subbasin •Cluster*—

Name Forest

Little Deschutes

Little Lost

Little Salmon

Little Spokane

Little Wood

Lochsa

Lost

Lower Boise

Lower Clark Fork

Lower Crab

Lower Crooked

Lower Deschutes

Lower Flathead

Lower Grande Ronde

Lower Henrys

Lower John Day

Lower Kootenai

Lower Malheur

Lower Middle Fork Salmon

Lower North Fork Clearwater

Lower Owyhee

Lower Salmon

Lower Selway

Lower Snake

Lower Snake-Asotin

Lower Snake-Tucannon

Lower Spokane

Lower Yakima

Medicine Lodge

Methow

Middle Clark Fork

Middle Columbia-Hood

5

3

6

2

5

4

6

5

6

5

6

4

1

4

3

2

3

6

6

2

4

3

Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula

Middle Fork Clearwater

Middle Fork Flathead

Middle Fork John Day

Middle Fork Payette

Middle Owyhee

Middle Salmon-Chamberlain

Middle Salmon-Panther

Middle Snake-Payette

Middle Snake-Succor

Moses Coulee

Moyie

Naches

North And Middle Fork Boise

North Fork Flathead

North Fork John Day

North Fork Payette

Okanogan

3

1

5

6

2

2

4

2

2

1

5

6

6

Range

3

5

3

3

6

1

6

4

1

1

3

6

6

1

6

2

3

6

3

2

4

4

4

3

4

6

2

3

4

3

6

3

5

2

5

6

5

4

2

3

3

3

4

Integrity Ratings

Forest

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

H

L

H

L

L

M

L

L

H

M

L

L

L

H

L

L

H

H

L

M

H

H

L

L

L

Range

H

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

M

L

L

L

L

M

L

L

M

M

L

L

L

L

Aquatic

L

M

M

L

L

M

L

L

L

L

L

M

L

H

L

M

L

L

H

M

L

M

M

L

L

L

L

L

L

M

M

M

L

M

M

M

L

M

H

M

L

L

L

L

H

M

M

M

L

L

Hydrology

: (Forest)

M

M

L

H

L

H

M

M

L

L

L

M

H

M

L

H

L

L

L

M

M

L

L

H

M

M

H

H

H

H

M

H

M

L

L

Hydrology

(Range)

L

H

M

H

H

M

L

M

M

H

M

M

L

M

M

H

M

M

L

L

H

M

M

L

Composite

Ecological

L

M

M

L

L

H

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

M

L

L

L

L

H

L

M

M

H

L

M

L

L

L

L

H

L

M

L

M

H

L

L

M

H

H

L

M

L

L

H

H

H

L

L

L

Appendix B-218
ID#

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

Subbasin

Name

Pahsimeroi

Palisades

Palouse

Payette

Pend Oreille

Pend Oreille Lake

Portneuf

Powder

Priest

Raft

Rock

Salmon Falls

Salt

Sanpoil

Silver

Silvies

Similkameen

Snake Headwaters

South Fork Boise

South Fork Clearwater

South Fork Coeur d'Alene

South Fork Flathead

South Fork Owyhee

South Fork Payette

South Fork Salmon

Sprague

St. Joe

Stillwater

Summer Lake

Swan

Teton

Thousand-Virgin

Trout

Umatilla

Upper Clark Fork

Upper Coeur d'Alene

Upper Columbia-Entiat

—Cluster #—

Forest

2

2

6

4

4

5

4

6

4

5

1

1

2

3

4

1

2

2

5

4

4

5

3

6

5

5

4

4

Upper Columbia-Priest Rapids

Upper Crab

Upper Crooked

Upper Deschutes

Upper Grande Ronde

Upper Henrys

Upper John Day

Upper Klamath

Upper Klamath Lake

Upper Kootenai

Upper Malheur

5

4

5

4

5

5

3

4

5

Range

5

5

4

6

3

6

3

6

4

5

3

3

6

6

2

2

5

3

2

5

3

3

3

6

6

5

1

4

3

5

4

1

3

3

6

1

3

3

6

Integrity Ratings

Forest

H

H

L

L

L

L

L

H

L

L

H

H

M

L

L

H

H

H

L

L

L

M

L

M

L

L

L

M

4

L

L

L

H

L

L

M

L

M

Range

H

H

L

L

L

L

L

M

L

L

L

H

L

L

M

L

L

L

L

L

M

L

L

Aquatic

M

M

L

L

L

M

M

L

L

L

L

L

M

L

L

L

L

H

M

M

L

H

L

M

M

M

M

L

L

M

M

M

M

M

L

M

L

L

L

L

L

M

M

M

L

L

M

L

Hydrology

; (Forest)

H

H

L

L

H

L

M

M

L

M

M

H

M

M

L

H

H

H

H

H

M

H

H

L

L

L

H

M

L

L

H

L

M

M

H

M

M

M

Hydrology

(Range)

L

M

H

M

H

L

H

H

L

L

H

H

M

L

M

H

M

M

Composite

Ecological

H

H

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L-NoOwn

M

L

L

L

L

H

H

H

M

L

H

M

H

H

L

L

L

L

M

L

M

L

L

L

L

M

M L

L

L

M

L

M

L

L

L

L

L

Appendix B-219
ID#

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

Subbasin

Name

—Cluster*—

Forest

Upper Middle Fork Salmon 1

Upper North Fork Clearwater 4

Upper Owyhee

Upper Quinn

Upper Salmon

Upper Selway

Upper Snake-Rock

Upper Spokane

Upper Yakima

Walla Walla

Wallowa

Warner Lakes

Weiser

Wenatchee

Williamson

Willow

Willow

Willow

Yaak

1

2

6

3

2

6

2

5

5

4

Range

5

5

5

2

6

3

5

4

2

6

6

2

3

6

6

4

Integrity Ratings

Forest

H

M

H

H

L

L

L

L

M

L

L

L

Range

H

M

M

L

L

L

M

L

L

L

L

Aquatic

H

M

M

L

M

H

L

L

M

M

H

L

L

H

M

M

L

L

M

Hydrology

: (Forest)

H

M

H

H

L

M

L

L

L

H

M

M

H

Hydrology

(Range)

M

L

L

H

L

M

H

H

H

M

Composite

Ecological

H

L

M

M

H

H

L

L

M

L

H

M

L

H

L

L

L

L

L

H = high integrity rating

M = medium integrity rating

L = low integrity rating

NoOwn = no BLM/FS ownership in subbasin

1,2,3,4,5,6 indicate forest or rangeland cluster numbers

Sources: Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia

Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, [irregular pagination]. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).

Quigley, Thomas M.; Lee, Kris; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the Science Integration Team.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station, [irregular pagination]. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem).

Appendix B-220
Table B-2—Social and economic resiliency ratings for each county within the Interior Columbia Basin Project area.

County

Ada

Adams

Adams

Asotin

Baker

Bannock

Benewah

Benton

Bingham

Blaine

Boise

Bonner

Bonneville

Boundary

Box Elder

Butte

Camas

Canyon

Caribou

Cassia

Chelan

Clark

Clearwater

Columbia

Crook

Custer

Deer Lodge

Deschutes

Douglas

Elko

Elmore

Ferry

Flathead

Franklin

Fremont

Fremont

Garfield

Gem

Gilliam

Good ing

State

ID

WA

ID

WA

OR

ID

ID

WA

ID

ID

ID

ID

ID

ID

UT

ID

ID

ID

ID

ID

WA

ID

ID

WA

OR

ID

MT

OR

WA

NV

ID

WA

MT

WA

WY

ID

WA

ID

OR

ID

Typology

Metropolitan

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Recreation

Metropolitan

Other

Recreation

Other

Recreation

Other

Other

Other

Other

Recreation

Metropolitan

Other

Other

Recreation

Other

Other

Other

Other

Recreation

Other

Recreation

Other

Recreation

Other

Other

Recreation

Metropolitan

Recreation

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Economic

Resiliency

H

L

L

M

M

M

L

M

L

M

L

H

M

M

L

L

L

H

L

M

H

L

L

L

L

L

L

H

L

L

L

L

H

M

M

L

L

M

L

M

Social

Resiliency

H

L

L

M

M

M

L

M

L

M

L

H

M

M

L

L

L

H

L

M

H

L

L

L

L

L

L

H

L

L

L

L

H

M

M

L

L

M

L

M

Lifestyle

Diversity

H

M

L

H

H

H

M

H

H

M

M

H

H

L

L

L

L

H

L

M

H

L

M

L

H

L

M

H

H

L

M

M

H

H

L

M

L

M

L

L

Socioeconomic

Resiliency

H

L

L

H

M

H

L

H

M

L

L

H

H

L

L

L

L

H

L

M

H

L

L

L

L

L

M

H

M

L

L

L

H

H

L

L

L

M

L

M

Appendix B-221
County

Granite

Grant

Grant

Harney

Hood River

Humboldt

Idaho

Jefferson

Jefferson

Jerome

Kittitas

Klamath

Klickitat

Kootenai

Lake

Lake

Latah

Lemhi

Lewis

Lewis and Clark

Lincoln

Lincoln

Lincoln

Lincoln

Madison

Malheur

Mineral

Minidoka

Missoula

Morrow

Nez Perce

Okanogan

Oneida

Owyhee

Payette

Pend Oreille

Powell

Power

Ravalli

Sanders

Sherman

Shoshone

Silver Bow

State

MT

OR

WA

OR

OR

NV

ID

ID

OR

ID

WA

OR

WA

ID

OR

MT

ID

ID

ID

MT

ID

MT

WY

WA

ID

OR

MT

ID

MT

OR

ID

WA

ID

ID

ID

WA

MT

ID

MT

MT

OR

ID

MT

Typology

Other

Other

Other

Other

Recreation

Recreation

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Recreation

Other

Other

Other

Recreation

Other

Recreation

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Recreation

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Economic

Resiliency

L

L

M

L

H

L

M

L

M

M

L

H

L

H

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

M

L

L

L

L

L

H

L

H

L

L

L

M

M

L

L

L

M

L

L

L

Social

Resiliency

L

L

M

L

H

L

M

L

M

M

L

M

L

H

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

M

M

L

M

L

L

L

H

L

H

L

L

L

M

M

L

L

L

M

L

L

M

Lifestyle

Diversity

L

M

M

M

M

L

M

M

M

M

H

H

H

H

M

M

M

L

L

H

L

M

L

L

L

M

L

M

H

L

H

M

L

L

M

L

M

L

M

L

L

L

H

Socioeconomic

Resiliency

L

L

M

L

H

L

L

M

M

M

M

H

M

H

L

M

M

L

L

H

L

L

L

L

M

L

L

M

H

L

H

L

L

L

H

L

L

L

M

L

L

L

H

Appendix B-222

CONTINUED
County

Skamania

Spokane

Stevens

Sublette

Teton

Teton

Twin Falls

Umatilla

Union

Valley

Walla Walla

Wallowa

Wasco

Washington

Wheeler

Whitman

Yakima

State

WA

WA

WA

WY

ID

WY

ID

OR

OR

ID

WA

OR

OR

ID

OR

WA

WA

Typology

Other

Metropolitan

Other

Recreation

Recreation

Recreation

Other

Other

Other

Recreation

Other

Other

Recreation

Other

Other

Other

Metropolitan

Economic

Resiliency

L

H

H

M

L

L

H

H

M

M

H

M

M

M

L

L

H

Social

Resiliency

L

H

H

M

L

L

H

H

M

M

H

M

M

M

L

L

H

Lifestyle

Diversity

M

H

M

L

L

L

H

H

H

L

H

L

H

L

L

M

H

Socioeconomic

Resiliency

L

H

H

L

L

L

H

H

H

L

H

L

M

L

L

M

H

H = high resiliency rating

M = medium resiliency rating

L = low resiliency rating

Sources: Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia

Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, [irregular pagination]. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).

Quigley, Thomas M.; Lee, Kris; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the Science Integration Team.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station, [irregular pagination]. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem).

Appendix B-223

This file was created by scanning the printed publication. 

Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; 

however, some errors may remain. 
Table B-3—Long-term trends in ecological integrity and risks projected for each subbasin within the Interior Columbia Basin Project are

ID#

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Subbasin

Name

Alvord Lake

American Falls

Banks Lake

Beaver-Camas

Beaver-South Fork

Big Lost

Big Wood

Birch

Bitterroot

Blackfoot

Blackfoot

Boise-Mores

Brownlee Reservoir

Bruneau

Bully

Burnt

Butte

C. J. Strike Reservoir

Camas

Chief Joseph

Clearwater

Coeur d'Alene Lake

Colville

C rooked- Rattl es nake

Donner Und Blitzen

East Little Owyhee

Fisher

Flathead Lake

Flint-Rock

Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake

Goose

Goose Lake

Greys-Hobock

Gros Ventre

Guano

Hangman

Harney-Malheur Lakes

Hells Canyon

Idaho Falls

Veg

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

0

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

Option 1

Rip

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

0

-1

Road

0

0

0

-1

0

-1

-1

0

-1

-1

0

-1

-1

0

0

-1

0

0

0

-1

-1

-1

-1

0

0

0

-1

-1

-1

-1

0

-1

0

0

0

0

0

-1

0

Comp

-2

-2

-2

-3

-2

-3

-3

-2

-3

-3

-2

-3

-3

-2

-2

-3

-2

-2

-2

-3

-3

-3

-3

-2

-2

-2

-3

-3

-3

-3

-2

-3

-2

-1

-2

-2

-2

-2

-2

Veg

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

-1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

Index

Option 2

Rip

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

Road

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-1

-1

0

-1

0

0

0

-1

0

0

0

0

-1

-1

0

0

0

0

-1

-1

1

0

0

-1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Comp

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

2

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

2

2

2

0

0

3

1

2

0

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

Veg

0

-1

0

-1

0

-1

-1

0

1

-1

-1

0

-1

0

-1

0

0

0

-1

-1

1

0

-1

1

0

0

-1

0

0

-1

-1

-1

1

0

-1

-1

0

-1

0

Option 3

Rip

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

Road

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Comp

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

3

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

3

1

0

2

1

1

0

1

2

0

0

0

2

1

0

0

1

-1

1

Trends in 

Option 1

0

+1

+1

+1

0

+1

+1

0

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

0

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

0

0

0

+1

+1

+1

+1

0

+1

+1

+1

0

+1

0

+1

+1

Appendix B-224
ID

#

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

Subbasin

Name

Imnaha

Jordan

Kettle

Klickitat

Lake Abert

Lake Chelan

Lake Walcott

Lemhi

Little Deschutes

Little Lost

Little Salmon

Little Spokane

Little Wood

Lochsa

Lost

Lower Boise

Lower Clark Fork

Lower Crab

Lower Crooked

Lower Deschutes

Lower Flathead

Lower Grande Ronde

Lower Henrys

Lower John Day

Lower Kootenai

Lower Malheur

Lower Middle Fork Salmon

Lower North Fork Clearwater

Lower Owyhee

Lower Salmon

Lower Selway

Lower Snake

Lower Snake-Asotin

Lower Snake-Tucannon

Lower Spokane

Lower Yakima

Medicine Lodge

Methow

Middle Clark Fork

Middle Columbia-Hood

Veg

-1

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

Middle Columbia-Lake Wallula1

Option 1

Rip

-1

-1

-1

-1

-11

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-11

-1

-1

-1

Road

-10

-1

-1

-100

-1

-10

-1

-10

-1

-10

-10

-1

-1

-1

-1

-10

-100

-10

-1

-10

-1000

-1

-1

-1

-10

Comp

-3

-2

-3

-3

-31

-2

-3

-3

-2

-3

-3

-2

-3

-3

-2

-3

-2

-3

-3

-3

-3

-3

-2

-3

-20

-3

-2

-3

-2

-2

-3

-2-2

-2

-3

-1

-3

-3

-2

Veg

10010101011001000000010

-1001011101-1000101

-1

Index

Option 2

Rip

11111111111111111111111111011101111111111

Road

10

-1

-1

-1000

-1

-1

-1001-10

-100-10

-100

-100

-10-110-100001

-1

-10

Comp

31010212021113010110111001102121101113010

Veg

-10000

-1

-10

-1

-11

-1

-1

-10

-100

-1

-1

-11

-1

-100

-1

-111

-101

-1

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

Option 3

Rip

11111111111111111111111111011101111111111

Road

10010000001001000000010000000110100001010

Comp

11121001003001101100030011

-102301300001110

Trends in 

Option 

+1+1+1+1000+1

+10

+1

+10

+1+1

+1+1+1

+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+10+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+10+1+1+1

+1

Appendix B-225
ID

#

81828384858687888990919293949596979899

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

Subbasin

Name

Middle Fork Clearwater

Middle Fork Flathead

Middle Fork John Day

Middle Fork Payette

Middle Owyhee

Middle Salmon-Chamberlain

Middle Salmon-Panther

Middle Snake-Payette

Middle Snake-Succor

Moses Coulee

Moyie

Naches

North And Middle Fork Boise

North Fork Flathead

North Fork John Day

North Fork Payette

Okanogan

Pahsimeroi

Palisades

Palouse

Payette

Pend Oreille

Pend Oreille Lake

Portneuf

Powder

Priest

Raft

Rock

Salmon Falls

Salt

Sanpoil

Silver

Silvies

Similkameen

Snake Headwaters

South Fork Boise

South Fork Clearwater

South Fork Coeurd'Alene

South Fork Flathead

South Fork Owyhee

South Fork Payette

Veg

-10

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-1

-1

-100

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

Option 1

Rip

-1

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-1

-1

-11

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

Road

-10

-1

-10

-1

-1000

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1000

-1

-10

-100

-1

-1

-100

-1

Comp

-3

-1

-3

-3

-2

-1

-3

-2

-2

-2

-3

-3

-3

-1

-3

-3

-3

-3

-3

-2

-3

-3

-3

-2

-3

-3

-2

-2

-3

-3-31-1-3-3-30-2-3

Veg

1100111010011100011

-1000000001000011110111

Index

Option 2

Rip

11111011111111111111111111101111111111011

Road

-10

-10010000-1110-1000000-1-10

-1

-10000

-10

-1001

-1

-1001

Comp

1201222121033201122010010012101022310123

Veg

1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-100

-1

-10

-100

-1

-1

-101

-1

-1

-10

-1

-10000

-10000101

-1

-1

-10

Option 3

Rip

11111011111111111111111111101111111111011

Road

10000100000110000000000000000000000110001

Comp

3000001100112100012000100111011112230

-102

Trends in 

Option 1

+1+1+1+10

+1+1

+1+1

+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+10+1

+1+1+1

+1+1+1+100

+1+10

+10

+1

+1

+1+100

+1

-2

Appendix B-226
ID

#

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

Subbasin

Name

South Fork Salmon

Sprague

St. Joe

Still water

Summer Lake

Swan

Teton

Thou sand-Virgin

Trout

Umatilla

Upper Clark Fork

Upper Coeurd'Alene

Upper Columbia-Entiat

Upper Columbia-

Priest Rapids

Upper Crab

Upper Crooked

Upper Deschutes

Upper Grande Ronde

Upper Henrys

Upper John Day

Upper Klamath

Upper Klamath Lake

Upper Kootenai

Upper Malheur

Upper Middle Fork Salmon

Upper North Fork Clearwater

Upper Owyhee

Upper Quinn

Upper Salmon

Upper Selway

Upper Snake-Rock

Upper Spokane

Upper Yaki ma

Walla Walla

Wallowa

Warner Lakes

Weiser

Wenatchee

Williamson

Willow

Veg

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

Option 1

Rip

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

Road

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-100

-1

-1

-1

-100

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-1

-10

-1000

-100

-10

-10

-1

-1

-1

-1

Comp

-3

-3

-3

-3

-3

-3

-3

-1

-2

-3

-3

-3

-3

-2

-2

-3

-3

-3

-3

-3

-3

-3

-3

-30

-3

-2

-2

-2

-1

-2

-2

-3

-2

-2

-2

-3

-3

-3

-3

Veg

10000101

-1000100010100000101111001

-1110100

Index

Option 2

Rip

111111101111111111111111011110111111111

Road 0

-1

-1-1-1-1000-1-1-1-100

-1

-1-1-1

-1-1-1

-1

-10

-1000000

-100001-1

-1

Comp

2000011100001110101000001022211110221300

Veg00-1-10-1-1-10-10-1-1-100-10100-100-1-100-1-10-1-1-11-1-1-100

Option 3

Rip

1111111011111111111111110111101111111111

Road

0000010000001000101000000000000010000100

Comp

1100110

-11010101111311011

-10110

-11010200111

Trends in 

Option 1

+1

+1

+1

+10

+1+10

+1+1+1+1

+1+1

+1+1

+1

+1

+1+1

+1

+1+100+100+1+1

+1+1

+1

+1

+10

+1+1+1+1

Appendix B-227
ID#

163

162

164

Subbasin

Name

Willow

Willow

Yaak

Veg

-1

-1

-1

Option 1

Rip

-1

-1

-1

Road

0

0

-1

Comp

-2

-3

Veg

-1

0

0

Index

Option 2

Rip Road

1 0

1 0

1 -1

Comp

0

1

0

Veg

-1

0

0

Option 3

Rip Road

1 0

1 0

1 0

Comp

0

1

1

Trends in 

Option 1

+1

+1

+1

Veg = Forest/Range Vegetation

Rip = Riparian Management

Road = Road Density

Comp = Composite Ecological Integrity

Values assigned reflect either decreasing (-1), stable (0), or increasing (+1) trends for each index.

Source: Quigley, Thomas M.; Lee, Kris; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the Science Integration Team. G

PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, [irregular paginatio

M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem).

-2

Appendix B-22

8
Figure B-2—Distribution of subbasins by identification number as referenced in tables B-l and B-3.

Appendix B-229
Figure B-2—Counties within the Basin.

Appendix B-230
APPENDIX C.

HABITAT OUTCOMES

FOR SELECTED SPECIES WITHIN THE BASIN.

This appendix presents the definitions (fig. C-l) and outcomes of viability for individual species (table C1) during historic, current, and projected future timeframes in the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project (ICBEMP) assessment area. Outcomes describe effects of habitat changes on federal

lands only, and cumulative effects on populations from habitat changes on federal and non-federal lands

and from other non-habitat influences.

Judgments on viability outcomes were solicited from expert panels provided with information on the

species population and habitat relationships, and information on habitat conditions for the timeframes

(see Lehmkuhl and others 1996 for details). The term "habitat" was defined as primary habitat capable of

supporting a self-replacing population. Separate judgments were made for the historical and current

periods and for each of the 3 future options in the two EIS planning areas [Eastern Oregon and Washington (EEIS), and the Upper Columbia River Basin (UCRB)].

For each timeframe and planning area, the experts were asked to first rate the species' likely distribution

based only on habitat conditions on the Federal lands and the natural history characteristics of the species.

The federal habitat judgments concerned potential population distribution across Federal land (FS and

BLM only) based on population changes associated with habitat, environmental stochasticity, or natural

catastrophes.

Then, panelists were asked to rate the cumulative effects on species populations across all ownerships

given habitat conditions across all ownerships, the natural history of the species, and all other influences

(such as, water pollution, trapping, etc.) on the species. The cumulative effects judgments concerned

likely population response to management of federal habitat, population change associated with habitat,

environmental stochasticity and natural catastrophes, changes in non-federal habitat, and other nonhabitat influences.

Expert judgments were registered by likelihood voting using a structured outcome scale (fig. C-l). The

outcome scale describes five distinct possible outcomes for the species or its habitat along a gradient

ranging from broadly- distributed, with high likelihood of persistence, to poorly-distributed, with high

likelihood of extirpation. For each judgment, each expert spread 100 likelihood votes across these five

outcomes.

We calculated for each species the mean likelihood score for each outcome from individual experts' scores,

then the weighted mean outcome (table C-2). The weighted mean was calculated by assigning a value to

each of the outcome categories (Outcome 1 value=l, Outcome 2 value=2, etc.), multiplying the mean

likelihood of that outcome by its assigned value, adding these products for all outcomes and then dividing

by 100. The resulting weighted mean can be compared across time periods and across future options.

Appendix C-231
Table C-l—Mean viability outcomes for evaluation of ICBEMP management alternatives. Mean outcomes were

calculated as the weighted mean of average likelihood scores in each outcome.

Group1

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

Species Name

Astragalus mulfordiae

Astragalus oniciformis

Astragalus paysonii

Astragalus solitarius

Astragalus yoder-williamsii

Botrychium ascendens

Botrychium crenulatum

Botrychium paradoxum

Calochortus longebarbatus

var. longebarbatus

Calochortus longebarbatus

var. peckii

Calochortus nltidus

Castilleja chlorotica

Collomia mazama

Cypripedium fasciculatum

Grindelia howellii

Hackelia cronquistii

Haplopappus liathformis

Howellia aquatilis

Lomatium suksdorfii

Mimulus pygmaeus

Area2 H

VASCULAR PLANTS

EEIS BLM/FS

EElSCumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElSCumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

UCRB BLM/FS

EEIS BLM/FS

EElSCumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElSCumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElSCumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElSCumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElSCumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElSCumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElSCumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElSCumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElSCumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElSCumEff

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.1

3.1

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.1

3.1

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.6

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.2

3.2

3.0

3.0

3.4

3.4

3.9

3.3

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.4

5.0

4.4

3.5

3.5

2.2

2.2

4.2

3.4

3.1

3.1

4.5

3.4

3.1

3.1

Period/Outcome3

c 1 2 3

Habitat & Populations

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.4

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.4

3.4

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.6

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.3

3.4

3.2

3.3

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.5

3.2

3.2

3.1

3.1

3.2

3.3

2.3

2.4

3.5

3.4

3.6

3.7

4.8

4.9

4.3

3.6

3.2

3.2

4.5

3.5

3.2

3.2

3.8

3.8

3.85

4.0s

3.8

3.6

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.2

4.65

4.65

4.15

4.15

4.45

4.65

3.6

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.2

3.2

3.7

3.8

3.8

4.7

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.2

3.3

2.4

2.4

3.4

3.2

3.8

3.7

4.9

4.9

4.3

3.6

3.2

3.3

4.5

3.6

3.2

3.2

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.1

3.1

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.3

4.65

4.65

3.8

3.8

4.25

4.65

3.6

3.6

3.4

3.5

3.2

3.2

3.5

3.6

3.8

4.7

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.0

3.2

2.1

2.2

3.3

3.2

3.6

3.6

4.9

4.9

4.3

3.7

3.2

3.3

4.5

3.6

3.2

3.2

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.8

3.4

3.6

3.2

3.2

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.2

4.75

4.65

3.5

3.5

3.8

4.65

3.6

3.6

3.4

3.4

3.1

3.1

3.8

3.8

3.8

4.9

3.3

3.4

3.1

3.1

3.3

3.2

2.2

2.2

3.3

3.2

3.7

3.6

4.9

4.9

4.3

3.7

3.2

3.2

4.5

3.6

3.2

3.2

Appendix C-232
Group1

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

Species Name

Mimulus washingtonensis

var. washingtonensis

Mirabilis macfarlanei

Penstemon glaucinus

Penstemon lemhiensis

Polemonium pectinatum

Silene spaldingii

Stephanomeria malheurensis

Trifolium thompsonii

Area2

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

H

3.7

3.7

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.6

3.6

3.3

3.3

4.4

2.2

4.5

2.2

5.0

3.5

3.5

Period/Outcome3

c

3.8

3.8

4.0

4.5

3.8

4.0

3.3

3.3

3.7

3.8

4.5

4.9

4.5

4.8

5.0

3.5

3.5

1

3.8

3.8

4.0

4.3

3.8

4.0

3.2

3.2

3.7

3.8

4.5

5.0

4.5

4.9

5.0

3.6

3.6

2

3.7

3.7

4.0

4.2

3.8

3.9

3.2

3.2

3.15

3.25

4.5

5.0

4.3

4.9

5.0

3.5

3.5

3

3.8

3.8

3.9

4.1

3.7

3.9

3.3

3.3

3.6

3.6

4.5

5.0

4.5

4.9

5.0

3.6

3.5

AMPHIBIAN S an d REPTILES

AMP

AMP

AMP

AMP

AMP

AMP

AMP

REP

REP

REP

REP

Coeur d'alene salamander

Spotted frog species B

Northern leopard frog

Spotted frog species A

Tailed frog

Western toad

Woodhouse's toad

Common garter snake

Desert horned lizard

Longnose leopard lizard

Mojave black-collared lizard

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

3.7

3.7

2.5

2.5

2.1

2.1

3.2

3.2

2.9

2.9

2.5

2.5

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.8

1.8

1.8

2.1

2.1

2.5

2.5

3.0

3.0

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

2.5

3.8

Habitat & Populations

4.3

4.4

3.5

3.5

3.1

3.1

4.5

4.5

4.7

4.8

3.6

3.6

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

2.4

3.3

2.6

3.4

3.9

3.9

3.8

3.8

2.5

3.5

2.6

3.1

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

3.8

3.9

3.8

3.9

2.8

3.8

4.6

4.9

3.9

4.0

3.6

3.75

4.7

5.05

4.9

5.0

4.1

4.1

4.15

4.65

4.05

4.25

3.45

4.45

3.55

4.25

4.55

4.75

4.45

4.75

3.55

4.55

3.25

3.75

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

4.0

4.1

4.0

4.1

3.0

4.2

4.2

4.7

3.5

3.6

3.1

3.2

4.4

4.9

4.3

5.0

3.4

3.7

3.2

3.85

3.2

3.6

2.2

3.4

2.6

3.6

3.7

4.55

3.7

4.65

2.5

3.5

2.6

3.2

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

3.8

3.9

3.8

3.9

2.8

3.9

4.1

4.5

3.4

3.5

3.0

3.1

4.3

4.9

3.95

4.9

3.15

3.6

3.0

3.6

3.0

3.5

2.0

3.3

2.5

3.5

3.4

4.55

3.4

4.65

2.5

3.5

2.6

3.1

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

2.8

3.8

Appendix C-233
Group1

REP

REP

REP

REP

REP

REP

REP

REP

WAT

WAT

WAT

WAT

WAT

WAT

WAT

WAT

Species Name

Night snake

Painted turtle

Rubber boa

Sagebrush lizard

Sharptail snake

Short-horned lizard

Striped whipsnake

Western pond turtle

Area2

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS4

EElS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

H

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

2.4

2.4

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

3.0

3.0

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

3.5

3.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

3.5

3.5

1.9

1.9

Period/Outcome3

c

1.5

2.5

1.6

1.6

2.7

3.3

2.7

3.4

3.5

3.5

3.6

3.6

1.5

2.5

1.6

2.0

4.5

4.5

1.5

2.5

1.6

1.7

1.5

2.5

3.8

3.8

2.6

4.6

1

1.5

2.5

1.6

1.7

3.25

3.95

3.15

3.95

3.9

4.95

3.8

4.35

1.5

2.5

1.7

2.3

4.7

5.05

1.5

2.5

1.7

1.7

1.5

2.5

3.9

3.9

3.0

4.9

2

1.5

2.5

1.6

1.6

2.6

3.2

2.6

3.4

3.3

4.35

3.5

4.0

1.5

2.5

1.6

2.1

4.4

4.9

1.5

2.5

1.6

1.7

1.5

2.5

3.8

3.8

2.2

4.6

3

1.5

2.5

1.5

1.6

2.4

3.2

2.5

3.2

2.95

3.9

3.2

3.8

1.5

2.5

1.6

2.0

3.95

4.5

1.5

2.5

1.6

1.6

1.5

2.5

3.7

3.8

2.2

4.6

WATERBIRD S and SHOREBIRD S

1) Open water birds

2) Common loon

3) Wood duck, mergansers

4) Goldeneyes

5) Western snowy plover

6) Harlequin duck

7) Herons, egrets

8) Dabbling ducks

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElSCumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.1

3.7

3.5

3.8

3.6

3.6

3.6

2.9

3.0

3.6

3.6

3.5

3.5

4.0

4.0

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.2

3.0

3.0

3.2

3.2

2.7

2.6

Habitat & Species Group

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.4

3.6

3.3

3.6

3.3

3.5

3.6

3.0

3.1

3.8

3.8

3.7

3.8

4.0

4.1

4.5

4.6

4.5

4.6

3.4

3.3

3.4

3.4

3.2

3.1

3.8

3.7

3.8

3.7

3.8

3.6

3.8

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.3

3.4

4.2

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.2

4.8

4.9

4.8

4.8

3.4

3.4

3.5

3.5

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.2

3.5

3.3

3.5

3.3

3.1

3.2

2.8

2.9

3.6

3.6

3.5

3.6

4.0

4.1

3.55

3.65

3.55

3.65

3.3

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.1

3.0

3.5

3.5

3.3

3.3

3.6

3.3

3.5

3.4

3.4

3.4

2.9

3.1

3.8

3.8

3.6

3.7

4.0

4.1

4.1

4.2

4.1

4.1

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.4

3.1

3.1

Appendix C-234
Group1

WAT

WAT

WAT

WAT

WAT

WAT

WAT

GMB

GMB

GMB

GMB

GMB

RAP

RAP

Species Name

9) Spotted sandpiper

10) Greater sandhill crane

11) Rails, avocets

12) Curlew , willet

13) Upland sandpiper

14) Common snipe

15) Migrant sandpipers

Area2

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

H

2.8

2.8

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.0

3.3

3.2

3.4

3.3

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.7

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.9

1.8

1.8

1.9

1.8

Period/Outcome3

c

3.3

3.3

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

3.5

3.4

3.2

3.3

3.5

3.4

3.6

3.5

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

2.1

2.0

2.2

2.0

RAPTOR S and GAMEBIRD S

Band-tailed pigeon

Blue grouse

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

Mountain quail

Sage grouse

Bald eagle

Barred owl

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

2.0

2.0

4.0

4.0

1.7

1.7

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.4

1.3

2.5

2.4

3.4

3.2

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.5

2.8

2.6

2.8

2.6

3.3

4.8

3.0

1

3.5

3.5

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.6

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.7

3.7

3.8

3.7

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

2.2

2.2

2.4

2.2

2

3.1

3.2

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.2

3.4

3.3

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

4.8

4.9

4.8

4.9

2.9

3.0

2.9

3.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.9

3

3.3

3.3

2.5

2.4

2.5

2.4

3.5

3.4

3.4

3.4

3.5

3.5

3.6

3.5

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

4.9

5.0

4.9

5.0

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

2.0

2.0

2.2

2.0

Habitat & Populations

3.0

3.1

4.1

4.1

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

4.8

4.6

4.6

4.6

3.9

3.7

4.8

4.7

3.2

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.6

3.7

3.6

3.7

2.2

2.4

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.7

3.8

2.3

2.3

2.3

2.2

4.6

4.6

4.6

4.5

4.0

3.8

4.7

4.7

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.4

3.5

2.5

2.5

2.45

2.6

2.7

3.55

3.55

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

4.05

3.95

4.05

3.95

3.5

3.5

4.4

4.3

2.35

2.35

2.25

2.35

2.95

2.95

2.95

2.95

3.25

2.95

2.5

2.8

2.9

3.45

3.55

2.0

2.0

1.9

1.9

4.4

4.3

4.4

4.3

3.6

3.6

4.6

4.5

2.65

2.65

2.6

2.6

3.05

2.95

3.05

2.95

2.3

2.6

2.25

Appendix C-235
Appendix C-236

Group1

RAP

RAP

RAP

RAP

RAP

RAP

RAP

RAP

RAP

RAP

RAP

RAP

RAP

CAV

Species Name

Boreal owl

Burrowing owl

Cooper's hawk

Ferruginous hawk

Flammulated owl

Great gray owl

Long-eared owl

Merlin

Northern goshawk

Northern pygmy-owl

Northern saw-whet owl

Swainson's hawk

Western screech owl

Black-backed woodpecker

Area2

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

H

4.9

4.1

4.2

2.9

3.3

1.5

1.3

1.5

1.4

1.8

1.7

1.8

1.7

2.3

2.2

2.3

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

3.4

3.3

3.0

2.9

3.1

3.0

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.9

2.8

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.1

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.2

2.0

2.0

2.1

2.1

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

CAVITY NESTER S

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

Period/Outcome3

c

3.2

4.2

4.2

3.7

3.7

3.0

2.8

2.9

2.8

2.4

2.2

2.4

2.3

3.0

2.8

3.0

2.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.6

3.3

3.6

3.4

3.1

3.0

3.1

3.0

2.5

2.4

2.6

2.5

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.9

2.0

1.9

2.0

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.8

1

2.35

4.3

4.3

3.6

3.5

3.0

2.9

3.0

2.9

2.5

2.3

2.4

2.3

3.0

2.7

3.0

2.7

4.2

4.2

4.2

4.2

3.8

3.7

3.4

3.3

3.7

3.5

3.7

3.6

3.3

3.1

3.1

3.0

2.7

2.6

2.6

2.5

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.7

1.8

2.0

1.8

2.0

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.9

2

2.45

4.0

4.2

3.25

3.3

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.8

1.9

1.7

1.9

1.8

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.95

2.95

2.95

2.95

3.5

3.4

3.05

3.0

3.2

3.1

3.3

3.2

3.0

3.0

2.9

2.9

2.3

2.2

2.2

2.2

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.8

1.9

1.8

1.9

2.6

2.5

2.6

2.5

3

2.35

3.75

3.9

3.05

3.25

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.0

1.9

2.0

1.9

2.6

2.5

2.6

2.5

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.6

3.5

3.1

3.1

3.5

3.4

3.6

3.5

3.1

3.1

3.0

3.0

2.4

2.3

2.3

2.3

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.6

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.8

1.9

1.8

1.9

2.6

2.5

2.6

2.6

Habitat & Populations

3.2

3.2

3.1

3.2

4.15

4.15

4.05

4.15

3.0

3.1

2.9

3.1

2.9

3.1

2.9

3.0
Group1

CAV

CAV

CAV

CAV

CAV

CAV

CAV

CAV

CAV

CAV

CAV

Species Name

Downy woodpecker

Hairy woodpecker

Lewis' woodpecker

Pileated woodpecker

Pygmy nuthatch

Red-naped sapsucker

Three-toed woodpecker

Vaux's swift

White-breasted nuthatch

White-headed woodpecker

Williamson's sapsucker

Area2

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff4

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff4

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff4

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff4

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff4

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff4

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff4

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff4

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

H

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.3

2.7

2.3

2.8

3.1

3.1

3.0

3.0

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.6

4.0

4.4

3.9

4.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

Period/Outcome3

c

2.7

2.8

2.7

2.7

2.2

2.1

2.2

2.2

3.5

3.9

3.4

4.0

3.4

3.4

3.4

3.4

2.9

2.9

3.0

3.0

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

2.9

3.0

2.9

3.0

3.7

4.1

3.8

4.1

3.0

3.0

2.9

2.9

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.1

3.1

3.2

3.2

1

3.1

3.0

3.25

3.2

2.6

2.6

2.5

2.6

4.55

4.85

4.55

4.85

4.05

4.05

4.05

4.05

3.65

3.65

3.65

3.65

3.85

3.95

3.85

3.95

4.05

4.05

4.05

4.05

4.55

4.8

4.5

4.8

3.65

3.65

3.65

3.65

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.3

4.05

4.05

3.95

3.95

2

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.5

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.55

3.05

2.75

3.25

2.55

2.55

2.55

2.55

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.75

2.85

2.75

2.85

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.7

4.1

3.7

4.1

2.8

2.8

2.7

2.7

2.75

2.85

2.75

2.85

2.9

2.9

3.0

3.1

3

2.9

2.8

3.0

3.0

2.2

2.3

2.2

2.3

2.65

3.05

2.75

3.35

2.55

2.55

2.65

2.65

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.9

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.95

3.4

2.9

3.4

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.9

3.15

3.15

3.15

3.15

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.9

CUCKOOS , HUMMINGBIRDS, AN D PASSERINES

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

Black-chinned hummingbird

Broad-tailed hummingbird

Chestnut-backed chickadee

Hammond's flycatcher

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.4

2.4

3.2

3.2

2.8

2.8

1.7

1.3

1.7

1.3

Habitat & Species Groups

3.1

3.2

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.5

3.3

3.3

3.2

3.2

3.5

3.5

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.6

3.3

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.7

3.8

3.7

3.8

3.1

3.3

3.1

3.3

3.1

3.3

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

2.95

3.2

2.9

3.2

3.1

3.2

3.1

3.2

3.2

3.3

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.6

2.95

3.1

2.9

3.1

Appeadix C-237
Appendix C-238

Group1

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

FOR

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

Species Name

Lazuli bunting

Olive-sided flycatcher

Rufous hummingbird

Rufous-sided towhee

Western bluebird

Western tanager

White-winged crossbill

Wilson's warbler

Winter wren

Black rosy finch

Bobolink

Brewer's blackbird

Brewer's sparrow

Grasshopper sparrow

Horned lark

Lark sparrow

Area2

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

H

2.6

2.6

2.4

2.4

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

2.4

2.4

2.3

2.3

2.6

2.6

2.5

2.5

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

3.0

2.9

3.0

2.9

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.2

2.2

2.2

2.0

2.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

3.7

3.4

3.3

3.3

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.3

3.6

1.9

2.8

2.6

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

1.3

1.3

Period/Outcome3

c

2.8

2.9

2.6

2.8

3.4

3.4

3.2

3.3

2.6

2.8

2.5

2.8

2.4

2.4

2.3

2.4

3.0

3.1

3.0

3.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

3.0

2.9

3.0

2.9

3.5

3.5

3.4

3.4

3.0

3.5

2.9

3.3

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.4

4.6

4.3

4.4

1.1

1.5

1.1

1.5

1.4

2.3

2.0

2.6

4.9

4.9

4.0

3.9

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.4

2.5

1

2.9

3.0

2.7

2.9

3.5

3.7

3.4

3.6

2.9

3.35

2.9

3.35

2.4

2.4

2.3

2.4

3.55

3.85

3.55

3.85

1.3

1.75

1.3

1.75

3.4

3.3

3.4

3.3

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.65

3.7

3.3

3.8

4.3

4.3

4.0

4.0

4.6

4.7

4.5

4.5

1.4

2.15

1.4

1.9

2.85

3.25

2.95

3.35

4.9

4.9

4.1

3.9

1.4

2.35

1.4

2.35

2.85

3.25

2

2.6

2.9

2.5

2.8

3.2

3.5

3.0

3.4

2.6

3.0

2.5

3.0

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.45

2.7

2.45

2.7

1.1

1.5

1.1

1.5

3.2

3.0

3.2

3.0

3.4

3.4

3.4

3.4

3.0

3.4

2.8

3.3

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.1

4.4

4.0

4.2

1.1

2.0

1.1

2.0

2.85

3.35

2.85

3.35

4.8

4.8

4.0

3.8

1.3

2.35

1.3

2.35

2.85

3.25

3

2.6

2.9

2.5

2.8

3.2

3.5

3.1

3.4

2.5

3.0

2.5

3.0

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.6

2.9

2.6

2.9

1.1

1.5

1.1

1.5

2.9

2.7

2.9

2.7

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.2

3.6

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.3

4.5

4.1

4.2

1.1

2.0

1.1

2.0

3.05

3.35

2.95

3.35

4.9

4.9

4.0

3.8

1.3

2.35

1.3

2.35

3.05

3.25
Group1

GS

GS

GS

GS

GS

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

RIP

WD

WD

WD

Species Name

Loggerhead shrike

Sage sparrow

Sage thrasher

Vesper sparrow

Western meadowlark

Red-eyed vireo

Red-winged blackbird

Veery

Willow flycatcher

Yellow warbler

Yellow-billed cuckoo

Yellow-breasted chat

Ash-throated flycatcher

Bushtit

Chipping sparrow

Area2

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS Cum/Eff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

H

1.4

1.4

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.7

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.3

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.2

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

3.4

3.3

3.4

3.3

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.7

2.7

2.4

2.4

2.6

2.5

2.6

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.3

2.5

2.4

2.5

2.4

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.1

3.0

3.0

3.4

3.4

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

Period/Outcome3

c

2.0

2.6

2.3

2.8

2.3

2.8

1.3

2.4

1.3

2.4

1.4

2.5

1.8

2.6

1.4

1.7

1.3

1.7

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

3.7

3.7

3.6

3.7

2.4

2.5

2.4

2.5

3.3

3.6

3.3

3.5

3.4

3.6

3.4

3.6

3.4

3.5

3.4

3.5

4.5

4.9

4.5

4.9

3.5

3.6

3.5

3.6

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.9

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.9

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1

2.95

3.35

3.05

3.45

2.95

3.45

2.55

3.15

2.55

3.15

2.85

3.25

2.95

3.25

1.95

2.45

1.95

2.45

1.4

1.6

1.4

1.6

3.7

3.8

3.7

3.7

2.7

3.15

2.7

3.15

3.4

3.7

3.4

3.6

3.6

3.7

3.6

3.7

3.5

3.7

3.5

3.7

4.8

4.9

4.8

4.9

3.6

3.7

3.6

3.7

2.3

2.55

2.3

2.55

3.1

3.1

3.2

3.2

1.1

1.4

1.1

1.4

2

2.85

3.35

2.95

3.2

2.95

3.2

2.45

3.15

2.45

3.15

2.85

3.25

2.85

3.25

1.8

2.35

1.8

2.35

1.3

1.5

1.3

1.5

3.5

3.6

3.4

3.6

2.3

2.8

2.3

2.8

3.2

3.4

3.1

3.4

3.4

3.6

3.4

3.6

3.3

3.5

3.3

3.5

4.5

4.8

4.5

4.7

3.4

3.5

3.4

3.5

3.35

3.05

3.35

3.05

3.55

3.55

3.55

3.55

1.1

1.4

1.1

1.4

3

2.95

3.35

3.05

3.6v

3.05

3.55

2.65

3.15

2.65

3.15

3.05

3.25

2.95

3.35

1.95

2.45

1.95

2.45

1.4

1.6

1.4

1.6

3.6

3.7

3.5

3.6

2.3

2.9

2.3

2.8

3.3

3.5

3.2

3.5

3.4

3.6

3.4

3.6

3.3

3.5

3.3

3.5

4.6

4.7

4.6

4.8

3.5

3.5

3.4

3.5

2.65

2.85

2.65

2.85

3.45

3.45

3.45

3.45

1.1

1.4

1.1

1.4

Appendix C-239
Group1

WD

Species Name

Green-tailed towhee

Area2

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

H

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.7

Period/Outcome3

c

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

1

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.8

2

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

3

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

BATS and SMAL L MAMMAL S

BAT

BAT

BAT

BAT

BAT

BAT

BAT

BAT

SMM

SMM

SMM

CAR

Fringed myotis

Hoary bat

Long-eared myotis

Long-legged myotis

Pale western big-eared bat

Silver-haired bat

Spotted bat

Western small-footed myotis

Northern flying squirrel

Pygmy rabbit

White-tailed jackrabbit

EEIS BLM/FS4

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS4

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS4

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS4

UCRB BLM/FS4

EEIS BLM/FS4

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

UCRB BLM/FS

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.7

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.2

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

2.4

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

2.5

2.4

2.5

2.4

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

2.2

2.2

2.1

2.2

2.1

2.2

3.7

3.7

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

Habitat & Populations

3.7

3.9

3.7

3.9

3.2

3.6

3.2

3.6

3.6

3.9

3.6

3.9

3.7

4.0

3.7

4.0

4.0

4.1

4.0

4.1

3.4

3.7

3.4

3.7

4.2

4.4

4.2

4.4

3.3

3.3

3.5

3.6

3.5

3.5

4.5

4.5

2.8

3.7

2.8

3.7

4.2

4.85

4.2

4.85

3.7

4.45

3.6

4.55

3.7

4.55

3.7

4.55

4.0

4.75

3.8

4.75

4.4

4.85

4.4

4.85

3.95

4.45

3.9

4.45

4.4

4.6

4.4

4.6

4.35

4.35

3.9

4.55

3.9

4.45

4.5

4.5

2.8

3.7

2.8

3.7

3.7

4.55

3.4

4.55

3.3

4.15

3.3

4.1

3.4

4.1

3.4

4.1

3.25

4.3

3.2

4.3

4.0

4.5

4.0

4.5

3.1

4.1

3.1

4.1

4.3

4.5

4.3

4.5

3.7

3.7

3.1

4.35

3.0

4.25

4.5

4.5

2.8

3.7

2.8

3.7

3.5

4.4

3.5

4.4

3.4

4.15

3.4

4.15

3.4

4.1

3.4

4.1

3.3

4.2

3.3

4.2

3.9

4.5

3.8

4.5

3.2

4.2

3.2

4.2

4.2

4.5

4.2

4.5

3.2

3.2

3.05

4.15

3.0

4.15

4.5

4.5

2.8

3.7

2.8

3.7

CARNIVORE S an d UNGULATES

American marten EEIS BLM/FS4

EElS CumEff4

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff4

2.5

2.5

2.1

2.1

Habitat and Populations

4.0

4.0

3.7

4.3

4.4

4.65

4.2

4.4

3.45

4.4

3.05

4.1

3.05

4.1

2.75

3.65

Appendix C-24O
1

 Group: PLT - vascular plants; AMP - amphibians; REP - reptiles; WAT - waterbirds and shorcbirds; GAM - gamebird; RAP -

raptor; CAV - cavity ncstcr; FOR - forest birds; GS - grassland/shrub birds; RIP - riparian birds; WD - woodland birds; BAT -

bat; SMM - small mammal; CAR - carnivore; UNG - ungulate.

2

 Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff - all

lands in Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and

Forest Service lands only; UCRB CumEff- all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

3

 Period / Option: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; 1 - Option 1; 2 - Option 2; 3 - Option 3

4

 Species for which panelists' scores were adjusted by Science Team. Scores were adjusted when considered to reflect a misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of the management alternatives or their outcomes, or the species ecology.

5

 Mean outcome for alternative departs from current outcome by greater than or equal to 0.50 units. Outcomes reported in table

were rounded to 0.1 units; but, differences were calculated to 0.01 units. Hence, departure calculated from the table may be

misleading.

Appendix C-241

Group1

CAR

CAR

CAR

CAR

CAR

UNG

UNG

UNG

Species Name

Fisher

Gray wolf

Grizzly bear

Lynx

Wolverine

California bighorn sheep

Prong horn

Woodland caribou

Area2

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff4

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff4

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff4

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff4

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff4

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff4

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff4

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff4

EEIS BLM/FS4

EEIS CumEff4

UCRB BLM/FS4

UCRB CumEff4

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

H

3.9

3.9

2.8

2.8

1.7

1.8

1.3

1.3

1.7

1.6

1.4

1.5

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

4.0

3.0

4.0

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.0

3.0

2.0

2.0

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

Period/Outcome3

c

4.8

4.9

3.8

4.8

2.3

4.3

2.1

4.2

4.4

4.9

4.0

4.8

4.4

4.6

4.4

4.6

4.4

4.6

4.0

5.0

4.6

4.7

4.6

4.7

3.5

4.1

2.5

3.4

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

1

4.9

4.9

4.1

4.7

2.5

4.4

2.2

4.4

4.5

4.9

4.1

4.9

4.6

4.8

4.5

4.8

4.5

5.0

4.1

5.0

4.6

4.7

4.6

4.7

3.9

4.3

3.05

4.35

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2

4.25

4.9

3.4

4.7

2.3

4.3

2.1

4.3

4.4

4.9

4.1

4.8

4.6

4.8

4.6

4.8

4.4

4.9

4.1

4.9

4.6

4.7

4.6

4.7

3.3

4.3

2.3

4.35

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

3

4.5

4.6

4.1

4.35

2.1

4.0

1.9

4.1

4.2

4.7

3.8

4.6

4.2

4.6

4.1

4.6

4.2

4.4

3.8

4.35

4.9

4.9

4.9

4.9

3.9

4.3

3.05

4.35

4.5

4.6

4.5

4.6
Appendix C-242

Table C-2—Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for selected species or habitat and species groups for

evaluation of ICBEMP management options. Likelihood scores for each period or option to 100 points. High

scores indicate high likelihood of an outcome. Means are calculated from the individual likelihood scores of panelists.

Group1 Species Name

PLT Astragalus mulfordiae

PLT Astragalus oniciformis

PLT Astragalus paysonii

PLT Astragalus solitarius

PLT Astragalus yoder-williamsii

Area2 Outcome3

Vascular Plants

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

H

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

90

10

Period/Outcome4

c

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

70

20

10

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

70

20

1

0

0

30

60

10

0

0

30

60

10

0

0

30

60

10

0

0

20

60

20

0

0

40

40

20

0

0

50

45

5

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

80

10

2

0

0

65

25

10

0

0

60

30

10

0

0

65

25

10

0

0

55

30

15

0

0

60

30

10

0

0

60

30

10

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

90

5

3

0

0

50

40

10

0

0

50

40

10

0

0

50

40

10

0

0

40

40

20

0

0

70

20

10

0

0

50

40

10

0

0

85

15

0

0

0

85

15

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

80

10
Appendix C-243

Group1 Species Name

PLT Botrychium ascendens

PLT Botrychium crenulatum

PLT Botrychium paradoxum

PLT Calochortus longebarbatus

var. longebarbatus

Area2

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

UCRB BLM/FS

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

Outcome3

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

c

10

0

0

70

20

10

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

65

35

0

Period/Outcome4

1

10

0

0

80

10

10

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

30

30

40

0

0

30

30

40

0

0

10

40

50

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

55

45

0

0

0

50

50

0

2

5

0

0

90

5

5

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

40

40

20

0

0

40

40

20

0

0

20

40

40

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

55

45

0

3

10

0

0

80

10

10

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

60

30

10

0

0

60

30

10

0

0

40

40

20

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

65

35

0

0

0

60

40

0
Appendix C-244

Group1 Species Name

PLT Calochortus longebarbatus

var. peckii

PLT Calochortus nitidus

PLT Castilleja chlorotica

PLT Collomia mazama

PLT Cypripedium fasciculatum

Area2

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

c

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

25

75

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

10

30

60

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

10

60

30

0

0

10

60

25

5

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

25

75

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

5

20

75

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

10

60

30

0

0

10

60

25

5

2

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

25

75

0

0

0

5

20

75

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

10

80

10

0

0

10

70

15

5

3

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

65

35

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

10

70

15

5
Appendix C-245

Group1 Species Name

PLT Grindelia howellii

PLT Hackelia cronquistii

PLT Haplopappus liatriformis

PLT Howellia aquatilis

Area2

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

70

30

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

c

0

80

10

10

0

0

70

20

10

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

15

85

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

60

20

20

0

0

90

5

5

0

0

90

5

5

Period/Outcome4

1

0

70

20

10

0

0

70

20

10

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

85

15

0

0

0

30

60

10

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

60

20

20

0

0

85

10

5

0

0

80

10

10

2

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

5

5

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

85

15

0

0

0

50

45

5

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

50

30

20

0

0

85

10

5

0

0

80

10

10

3

0

80

20

0

0

0

85

15

0

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

85

15

0

0

0.

45

45

10

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

50

30

20

0

0

90

5

5

0

0

90

5

5
Appendix C-246

Group1

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

PLT

Species Name

Lomatium suksdorfii

Mimulus pygmaeus

Mimulus washingtonensis

var. washingtonensis

Mirabilis macfarlanei

Penstemon glaucinus

Area2

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

40

60

0

c

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

5

90

5

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

25

70

5

0

0

10

80

10

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

70

30

0

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

5

90

5

0

0

10

50

40

0

0

25

70

5

0

0

10

80

10

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

2

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

85

15

0

0

0

85

15

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

10

80

10

0

0

10

60

30

0

0

30

65

5

0

0

20

70

10

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

3

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

20

70

10

0

0

10

70

20

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

20

70

10

0

0

75

25

0

0

0

75

25

0
Group1

 Species Name

PLT Penstemon lemhiensis

PLT Polemonium pectinatum

PLT Silene spaldingii

PLT Stephanomeria

malheurensis

PLT Trifolium thompsonii

AMP Coeur d'alene salamander

AMP Spotted frog species B

Area2

 Outcome3 H

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

0

60

40

0

80

20

0

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

80

20

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

Amphibians and Reptiles

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

0

0

40

50

10

0

0

40

50

10

20

30

35

10

5

C

0

0

40

50

10

0

0

30

60

10

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

3

63

33

0

0

3

57

40

0

0

60

30

10

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

40

50

10

0

0

30

60

10

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

5

95

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

15

85

0

0

30

50

20

2

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

0

55

45

0

0

0

5

95

0

0

10

50

40

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

55

45

0

00

0

5

70

25

0

0

0

28

72

0

0

65

25

10

3

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

5

95

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

10

75

15

0

0

3

45

52

0

0

73

20

8

Appendix C-247
Group1

 Species Name

AMP Northern leopard frog

AMP Spotted frog species A

AMP Tailed frog

Area2 Outcome3

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS5

EElSCumEff

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS5

EElS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

20

30

35

10

5

25

50

15

10

0

25

50

15

10

0

0

17

50

33

0

0

17

50

33

0

3

33

33

30

0

3

33

33

30

0

0

60

30

10

0

0

60

30

10

0

0

50

25

20

5

0

50

25

20

5

0

47

28

22

3

0

47

28

22

3

C

0

0

60

30

10

0

20

50

30

0

0

20

50

30

0

0

0

17

20

63

0

0

17

20

63

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

23

77

0

0

50

40

10

0

0

50

40

10

0

25

45

18

13

0

25

45

18

13

0

23

43

22

12

0

23

43

22

12

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

25

55

20

0

5

40

50

5

0

0

40

55

5

0

0

0

27

73

0

0

0

3

97

0

0

0

7

93

0

0

0

3

97

0

0

20

50

30

0

0

20

50

30

0

0

13

65

23

0

0

8

25

68

0

3

18

57

22

0

3

20

27

50

2

0

0

58

30

13

0

20

55

25

0

0

18

50

33

0

0

0

15

30

55

0

0

0

8

92

0

0

20

33

47

0

0

0

5

95

0

10

50

35

5

0

0

45

40

15

0

30

40

18

13

0

0

45

38

18

0

27

42

22

10

0

5

45

37

13

3

0

0

65

25

10

3

23

58

18

0

0

20

55

25

0

0

0

20

30

50

0

0

0

15

85

0

5

30

35

30

0

0

0

15

85

0

20

55

20

5

0

0

50

40

10

0

38

35

18

10

0

0

55

33

13

0

35

37

22

7

0

7

50

32

12

Appendix C-248
Appendix C-249

Group1 Species Name

AMP Western toad

AMP Woodhouse's toad

REP Common garter snake

REP Desert horned lizard

Area2 Outcome3

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS5

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

40

45

15

0

0

40

45

15

0

0

27

43

23

7

0

27

43

23

7

0

0

55

40

5

0

0

55

40

5

0

0

25

50

25

0

0

25

50

25

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

c

10

50

35

5

0

0

20

45

25

10

7

45

33

13

2

0

18

40

30

12

0

0

25

65

10

0

0

25

65

10

0

0

30

65

5

0

0

30

65

5

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

50

40

10

0

0

25

40

35

0

45

55

0

0

0

Period/Outcome4

1

0

20

20

60

0

0

5

15

20

60

0

15

23

55

7

0

3

20

23

53

0

0

5

45

50

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

5

55

40

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

23

40

38

0

0

20

18

38

25

40

60

0

0

0

2

15

53

33

0

0

0

18

40

35

8

10

40

33

13

3

0

12

35

37

17

0

10

25

50

15

0

0

0

50

50

0

10

25

50

15

0

0

0

43

58

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

50

40

10

0

0

23

43

35

0

45

55

0

0

0

3

25

50

25

0

0

0

23

40

30

8

17

40

30

12

2

0

17

35

33

15

0

15

35

45

5

0

0

0

55

45

0

15

35

45

5

0

0

0

45

55

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

53

43

5

0

0

25

40

35

0

50

50

0

0

0
Appendix C-250

Group1 Species Name

REP Longnose leopard lizard

REP Mojave-collared lizard

REP Night snake

Area2

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

20

30

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

c

45

55

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

0

0

30

60

10

0

0

25

60

15

0

0

30

60

10

0

0

25

60

15

0

30

60

10

0

0

0

40

40

20

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

Period/Outcome4

1

40

60

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

0

0

20

60

20

0

0

20

55

25

0

0

20

60

20

0

0

20

55

25

0

20

60

20

0

0

0

20

40

40

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

35

65

0

0

0

2

45

55

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

0

0

30

60

10

0

0

25

60

15

0

0

30

60

10

0

0

25

60

15

0

30

60

10

0

0

0

25

60

15

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

3

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

0

35

55

10

0

0

30

60

10

0

0

35

55

10

0

0

30

60

10

0

35

55

10

0

0

0

30

60

10

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0
Group1

 Species Name

REP Painted turtle

REP Rubber boa

REP Sagebrush lizard

REP Sharptail snake

Area2

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS5

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

5

50

45

0

0

5

50

45

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

25

50

25

0

0

25

50

25

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

c

0

40

55

5

0

0

20

35

45

0

0

35

65

0

0

0

15

35

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

48

53

0

0

0

45

55

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

30

40

30

0

0

0

0

0

50

50

Period/Outcome4

1

0

15

50

35

0

0

10

20

40

30

0

18

58

25

0

0

10

20

45

25

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

25

75

0

0

0

15

40

45

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

35

65

o

0

0

20

35

45

0

0

0

0

0

30

70

2

0

45

50

5

0

0

20

40

40

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

13

40

48

0

0

10

50

40

0

0

0

10

50

40

0

5

48

48

0

0

0

25

55

20

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

25

40

35

0

0

0

0

10

45

45

3

5

50

45

0

0

0

20

45

35

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

18

45

38

0

0

30

50

20

0

0

0

30

50

20

0

15

50

35

0

0

0

38

53

10

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

30

40

30

0

0

0

0

30

50

20

2

Appendix C-251
Appendix C-252

Group1 Species Name

REP Short-horned lizard

REP Striped whipsnake

REP Western pond turtle

WAT 1: Open water birds

Area2 Outcome3

EElS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

0

50

50

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

40

30

30

0

0

40

30

30

0

0

C

0

0

0

50

50

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

35

65

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

35

55

10

0

0

35

55

10

10

30

50

10

0

0

0

10

20

70

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

0

0

100

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

30

55

15

0

0

30

55

15

0

30

50

10

10

0

0

0

10

90

2

0

0

0

10

90

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

35

65

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

35

55

10

0

0

30

60

10

20

40

40

0

0

0

0

10

20

70

3

0

0

0

50

50

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

0

40

50

10

0

0

35

55

10

20

40

40

0

0

0

0

10

20

70

Habitat and Species Groups - Waterbirds and Shorebirds

EEIS BLM/FS 1

2

3

4

5

0

7

91

2

0

0

2

46

46

6

0

0

37

48

15

0

7

65

24

4

0

1

53

41

5
Appendix C-253

Group1 Species Name

WAT 2: Common loon

WAT 3: Wood duck, mergansers

WAT 4: Goldeneyes

Area2

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

2

90

8

0

0

2

80

18

0

0

4

78

18

0

0

0

26

74

0

0

6

36

58

0

0

0

18

82

0

0

0

37

63

0

0

40

58

0

0

1

36

63

0

0

16

74

10

0

0

16

72

12

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

41

59

0

C

0

3

51

38

8

0

1

61

28

10

0

6

59

27

8

0

0

39

61

0

0

16

40

44

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

16

35

49

0

0

12

36

42

10

0

9

34

46

11

5

23

45

19

8

6

18

44

24

8

0

0

24

70

6

0

0

30

65

5

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

43

44

13

0

0

36

48

16

0

38

46

14

0

0

28

60

12

0

10

34

46

10

0

0

34

54

12

0

14

24

49

13

0

6

36

42

16

0

5

33

39

23

2

18

38

28

14

5

15

30

31

19

0

0

10

61

29

0

0

15

65

20

2

0

9

59

28

4

0

6

67

22

5

0

60

24

4

0

4

40

56

0

0

16

41

43

0

0

4

44

52

0

0

16

34

50

0

0

25

42

29

4

0

22

41

33

4

6

29

46

15

4

6

23

51

17

3

0

0

44

54

0

0

42

56

3

0

2

53

40

5

0

2

65

31

0

4

61

33

0

4

36

60

0

0

16

40

44

0

0

4

42

54

0

0

16

33

51

0

0

15

41

38

6

0

13

41

40

6

5

27

43

19

6

6

22

42

18

12

0

0

30

64

6

0

0

29

65

6

2

2 2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2
Appendix C-254

Group1 Species Name

WAT 5: Western snowy plover

WAT 6: Harlequin duck

WAT 7: Herons, egrets

WAT 8: Dabbling ducks

Area2

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

H

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

51

49

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

20

40

40

0

0

20

40

40

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

82

18

0

0

30

70

0

0

c

0

0

34

62

4

0

0

30

63

7

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

43

57

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

41

59

0

0

64

30

6

0

4

69

19

8

0

0

68

28

4

0

0

67

29

4

0

12

58

28

2

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

12

65

23

0

0

15

64

21

0

0

0

88

12

0

0

0

82

18

0

0

0

19

81

0

0

0

15

85

0

0

0

21

79

0

0

0

17

83

0

0

61

35

4

0

60

34

4

0

0

55

39

6

0

0

53

41

6

0

9

46

41

4

2

0

0

53

43

4

0

0

46

50

4

0

0

0

97

3

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

60

32

8

0

0

52

34

14

0

0

76

20

4

0

6

71

19

4

0

0

74

23

3

0

0

68

28

4

0

11

73

16

0

3

0

0

38

60

2

0

0

36

62

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

19

57

24

0

0

14

57

29

0

0

19

57

24

0

0

15

59

26

0

0

61

34

5

0

5

59

31

5

0

0

68

30

2

0

0

64

34

2

0

11

65

24

0

2

2

2

2
Appendix C-255

Group1 Species Name

WAT 9: Spotted sandpiper

WAT 10: Greater sandhill crane

WAT 11: Rails, avocets

Area2

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

44

56

0

0

0

18

80

2

0

0

25

75

0

0

0

46

54

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

48

52

0

0

0

52

48

0

0

0

5

80

15

0

0

8

79

14

0

0

11

73

16

0

0

13

71

16

0

0

0

69

31

0

C

0

16

57

25

2

0

4

60

35

1

0

8

58

31

3

0

54

46

0

0

0

55

45

0

0

0

54

46

0

0

0

54

46

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

3

56

41

0

0

10

61

29

0

0

5

63

33

0

0

0

54

46

0

Period/Outcome4

1

0

12

42

42

4

0

3

47

45

5

0

7

43

44

6

0

43

51

6

0

0

51

43

6

0

0

43

51

6

0

0

51

43

6

0

0

0

34

65

1

0

4

39

56

1

0

3

46

51

0

0

3

45

53

0

0

0

36

54

10

2

0

15

67

18

0

0

12

66

22

0

0

9

63

28

0

0

51

49

0

0

0

55

45

0

0

0

51

49

0

0

0

59

41

0

0

0

3

69

29

0

0

5

70

25

0

0

10

68

23

0

0

8

70

23

0

0

1

69

30

0

3

0

13

66

21

0

0

5

61

34

0

0

8

56

36

0

0

52

48

0

0

0

56

44

0

0

0

52

48

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

3

54

44

0

0

5

53

43

0

0

4

51

45

0

0

0

52

46

2
Appendix C-256

Group1 Species Name

WAT 12: Curlew, willet

WAT 13: Upland sandpiper

WAT 14: Common snipe

Area2

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRBCumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS5

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

Outcome3

1

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

8

64

28

0

0

0

59

41

0

0

4

64

32

0

0

0

28

73

0

0

0

33

68

0

0

0

28

73

0

0

0

33

68

0

2

68

30

0

0

2

66

32

0

0

0

66

34

0

0

0

66

34

0

0

0

20

74

6

0

0

18

76

6

0

C

0

2

55

43

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

2

50

48

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

14

86

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

14

86

0

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

12

68

20

0

0

12

66

22

0

Period/Outcome4

1

0

2

36

53

9

0

0

31

60

9

0

2

34

56

8

0

0

3

95

3

0

0

5

93

3

0

0

3

95

3

0

0

5

93

3

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

9

55

34

2

0

10

53

35

2

2

0

3

70

27

0

0

0

63

37

0

0

3

69

28

0

0

0

21

79

0

0

0

24

76

0

0

0

18

83

0

0

0

24

76

0

0

0

0

25

75

0

0

0

12

88

0

0

0

25

75

0

0

0

12

88

0

20

67

13

0

0

18

68

14

0

3

0

2

52

44

2

0

0

43

56

1

0

2

50

47

1

0

0

9

89

3

0

0

13

85

3

0

0

9

89

3

0

0

13

85

3

0

0

0

15

85

0

0

0

2

98

0

0

0

15

85

0

0

0

98

0

15

63

22

0

0

14

62

24

0

2

2

2

2

2
Appendix C-257

Group1 Species Name

WAT 15: Migrant sandpipers

GMB Band-tailed pigeon

GMB Blue grouse

Area2

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

20

74

6

0

0

18

76

6

0

32

52

16

0

0

36

50

14

0

0

28

57

15

0

0

35

51

14

0

0

Raptors and Gamebirds

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

34

31

32

3

0

36

28

33

3

0

0

2

22

48

28

0

2

24

47

27

42

44

14

0

0

44

42

14

0

0

54

C

0

12

68

20

0

0

12

66

22

0

20

51

29

0

0

25

53

22

0

0

12

59

29

0

0

24

55

21

0

0

4

28

40

24

4

2

26

42

24

6

0

4

22

36

38

0

2

22

36

40

16

50

34

0

0

16

49

35

0

0

14

Period/Outcome4

1

0

9

55

34

2

0

10

53

35

2

15

48

35

0

17

53

28

2

0

5

57

36

2

0

13

56

29

2

0

2

26

42

30

0

1

25

41

33

0

0

4

36

44

16

0

2

36

44

18

14

44

36

6

0

16

42

36

6

0

17

2

0

20

67

13

0

0

18

68

14

0

25

48

27

0

0

26

53

21

0

0

22

54

24

0

0

25

56

19

0

0

16

23

43

18

0

15

21

39

25

0

0

16

29

46

9

0

16

27

46

11

27

56

17

0

0

27

56

17

0

0

29

3

0

15

63

22

0

0

14

62

24

0

24

48

28

0

0

25

53

22

0

0

12

59

29

0

0

22

57

21

0

0

4

33

39

24

0

3

31

40

26

0

4

12

30

44

10

0

16

28

44

12

22

60

18

0

0

23

59

18

0

0

25

2
Appendix C-258

Group1 Species Name

GMB Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse

GMB Mountain quail

GMB Sage grouse

Area2

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

Outcome3

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

44

0

0

56

44

0

0

0

74

26

0

0

0

76

24

0

0

0

62

38

0

0

0

66

34

0

0

0

0

62

22

16

0

0

68

26

6

0

0

18

38

32

0

24

37

35

4

42

54

4

0

0

48

49

3

0

0

44

52

4

0

0

C

50

36

0

0

14

50

36

0

0

0

0

2

20

78

0

0

32

66

0

0

2

32

66

0

0

2

36

62

0

27

54

17

0

2

36

57

5

0

0

0

18

82

0

0

2

22

76

0

16

52

28

4

0

22

49

25

4

0

18

56

24

2

Period/Outcome4

1

41

37

5

0

17

43

40

0

0

0

0

2

32

66

0

0

2

39

59

0

0

37

61

0

0

42

56

0

0

28

47

25

0

0

33

59

8

0

0

2

22

76

0

0

3

24

73

0

8

47

41

4

0

10

48

38

4

0

10

49

39

2

2

54

17

0

0

29

55

16

0

0

0

16

58

24

0

4

22

52

22

0

16

59

23

0

24

53

21

0

8

42

43

7

0

0

55

45

0

0

0

12

36

52

0

0

12

43

45

16

47

33

4

0

14

49

34

3

0

20

42

34

4

0

3

57

18

0

0

25

59

16

0

0

0

2

6

45

47

0

4

10

41

45

0

6

45

47

0

2

12

41

45

0

6

42

38

14

0

0

47

51

0

0

8

29

63

0

0

8

33

59

5

43

42

10

0

5

43

43

9

0

5

41

42

12

0

2

2

2

2

2

2 2

2

2

2

2

2
Appendix C-259

Group1 Species Name

RAP Bald eagle

RAP Barred owl

RAP Boreal owl

Area2

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

50

47

3

0

0

0

32

60

8

0

0

44

50

6

0

0

32

60

8

0

0

44

50

6

0

0

12

56

18

14

0

0

6

10

84

2

18

58

22

0

0

0

0

14

86

2

2

24

32

40

0

2

16

46

36

2

36

36

24

2

0

22

38

30

10

Period/Outcome4

c

0

22

53

23

2

0

6

42

42

10

0

0

45

43

12

0

6

42

42

10

0

0

45

43

12

12

60

28

0

0

6

52

42

0

0

2

32

38

28

0

2

24

34

32

8

0

0

18

40

42

0

2

16

38

44

0

7

42

24

27

0

7

40

26

27

1

0

10

50

38

2

0

10

52

30

8

0

8

49

33

10

0

10

52

30

8

0

8

49

33

10

6

49

33

12

0

8

42

38

12

0

8

51

35

6

0

12

51

31

6

0

0

2

16

37

45

0

2

17

35

46

2

10

34

39

15

2

10

36

39

13

2

14

48

35

3

0

0

19

70

11

0

0

23

66

11

0

0

19

70

11

0

0

23

66

11

0

0

21

42

35

2

6

24

41

29

0

6

50

34

10

0

10

47

33

10

0

0

2

28

35

35

0

2

20

38

40

2

24

36

32

6

2

10

45

39

4

3

3

42

44

11

0

0

16

70

14

0

0

21

66

13

0

0

16

70

14

0

0

21

66

13

0

8

56

32

4

0

0

52

36

12

0

10

62

26

2

0

8

60

22

10

0

2

2

38

36

22

2

2

29

40

27

3

26

40

30

1

3

12

49

36

0
Appendix C-260

Group1 Species Name

RAP Burrowing owl

RAP Cooper's hawk

RAP Ferruginous hawk

RAP Flammulated owl

Area2

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

56

38

6

0

0

70

26

4

0

0

52

42

6

0

0

65

31

4

0

0

34

50

14

2

0

38

52

10

0

0

34

50

14

2

0

38

52

10

0

0

2

66

32

0

0

6

70

24

0

0

2

64

34

0

0

6

70

24

0

0

1

76

21

2

0

C

0

33

42

21

4

0

38

43

19

0

0

36

40

20

4

0

40

41

19

0

14

36

48

2

0

19

41

40

0

0

15

36

47

2

0

16

43

41

0

0

0

24

56

18

2

0

29

66

5

0

0

22

58

18

2

0

29

66

5

0

0

2

40

38

20

Period/Outcome4

1

0

31

44

21

4

0

33

48

17

2

0

32

42

20

6

0

34

49

15

2

12

34

50

4

0

18

39

41

2

0

15

34

47

4

0

16

40

42

2

0

0

23

57

18

2

0

32

66

2

0

0

21

59

18

2

0

32

66

2

0

0

1

20

39

40

2

0

37

44

19

0

0

37

46

17

0

0

39

44

17

0

0

38

47

15

0

30

50

20

0

0

36

54

10

0

0

31

50

19

0

0

32

58

10

0

0

0

52

46

2

0

0

55

45

0

0

0

50

48

2

0

0

55

45

0

0

0

26

60

13

1

3

0

34

45

21

0

0

35

43

22

0

0

35

45

20

0

0

35

45

20

0

30

40

28

2

0

35

45

20

0

0

31

40

27

2

0

32

48

20

0

0

0

44

52

4

0

0

49

51

0

0

0

42

54

4

0

0

49

51

0

0

0

14

51

27

8
Appendix C-261

Group1 Species Name

RAP Great gray owl

RAP Long-eared owl

RAP Merlin

Area2

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

1

76

21

2

0

1

76

21

2

0

1

76

21

2

0

0

10

48

36

6

0

13

51

30

6

0

20

62

16

2

2

22

58

16

2

0

21

53

21

5

0

26

51

19

4

0

21

53

21

5

0

28

50

19

4

0

30

50

20

0

0

35

52

13

0

C

0

2

39

39

20

0

2

40

38

20

0

2

40

38

20

0

4

44

32

20

0

7

44

29

20

0

6

46

38

10

0

8

44

39

9

0

10

38

43

10

0

14

46

35

5

0

8

38

45

10

0

10

48

38

5

0

20

49

29

2

0

25

47

28

0

Period/Outcome4

1

0

1

19

38

42

0

1

20

39

40

0

1

20

39

40

0

0

38

40

22

0

4

43

31

22

0

14

44

34

8

0

18

39

35

8

0

8

33

46

14

0

10

41

39

10

0

6

33

48

14

0

6

43

41

10

0

16

46

35

3

0

19

50

29

2

2

0

25

61

13

1

0

26

60

13

1

0

26

60

13

1

0

2

49

45

4

0

8

50

38

4

0

22

56

22

0

0

24

52

24

0

0

19

46

30

5

0

23

53

23

3

0

15

48

33

5

0

18

50

30

3

0

24

54

21

1

0

27

51

22

0

3

0

13

51

28

8

0

14

51

27

8

0

14

51

27

8

0

2

50

30

18

0

8

50

24

18

0

23

43

32

2

0

27

38

33

2

0

11

41

40

8

0

14

49

30

8

0

6

43

44

8

0

6

48

39

8

0

19

54

24

3

0

22

52

24

2
Appeadix C-262

Group1 Species Name

RAP Northern goshawk

RAP Northern pygmy-owl

RAP Northern saw-whet owl

Area2

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

30

51

19

0

0

33

53

14

0

16

54

30

0

0

20

55

25

0

0

16

56

28

0

0

20

52

28

0

0

65

35

0

0

0

66

34

0

0

0

68

33

0

0

0

69

31

0

0

0

71

27

2

0

0

74

24

2

0

0

73

27

0

0

0

C

0

20

53

27

0

0

27

50

23

0

8

46

35

11

0

10

51

32

7

0

9

38

36

17

0

10

44

32

14

0

44

53

4

0

0

45

53

3

0

0

46

50

4

0

0

48

50

3

0

0

37

56

7

0

0

38

56

6

0

0

39

54

7

0

0

Period/Outcome4

1

0

19

48

33

0

0

22

53

25

0

5

35

44

16

0

6

39

46

9

0

6

33

54

7

0

8

35

53

4

0

35

60

5

0

0

36

60

4

0

0

38

58

5

0

0

39

58

4

0

0

32

58

10

0

0

32

60

8

0

0

32

60

8

0

0

2

0

27

53

20

0

0

30

51

19

0

16

48

29

7

0

20

50

24

6

0

16

47

34

3

0

20

42

37

1

0

59

40

1

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

61

38

1

0

0

63

38

0

0

0

56

38

6

0

0

57

39

4

0

0

58

38

4

0

0

3

0

21

57

22

0

0

24

56

20

0

11

44

37

8

0

12

47

37

4

0

11

49

40

0

0

14

43

42

1

0

51

46

3

0

0

53

46

1

0

0

51

46

3

0

0

53

46

1

0

0

49

44

7

0

0

50

45

5

0

0

51

42

7

0

0
Appendix C-263

Group1 Species Name

RAP Swainsons hawk

RAP Western screech owl

CAV Black-backed woodpecker

Area2 Outcome3

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

76

24

0

0

0

23

59

14

4

0

23

59

14

4

0

23

53

20

4

0

23

53

20

4

0

0

56

44

0

0

0

61

39

0

0

0

56

44

0

0

0

59

41

0

0

c

40

54

6

0

0

32

51

17

0

0

27

51

20

2

0

32

51

17

0

0

27

51

20

2

0

0

33

58

9

0

0

29

59

12

0

0

33

58

9

0

0

31

57

12

0

Woodpeckers, Nuthatches, and swifts

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

3

83

15

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

5

80

15

0

Period/Outcome4

1

32

62

6

0

0

32

53

15

0

0

27

53

18

2

0

32

53

15

0

0

27

53

18

2

0

0

22

67

11

0

0

20

67

13

0

0

22

67

11

0

0

22

65

13

0

0

0

19

58

24

0

0

16

55

29

0

4

16

59

21

2

59

39

2

0

0

35

52

13

0

0

30

55

14

1

0

35

52

13

0

0

30

55

14

1

0

0

46

53

1

0

0

48

52

0

0

0

46

53

1

0

0

47

53

0

0

0

15

73

13

0

0

13

70

18

0

0

23

68

10

0

3

52

43

5

0

0

31

55

14

0

0

26

58

14

2

0

31

55

14

0

0

26

58

14

2

0

0

43

57

0

0

0

47

53

0

0

0

43

57

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

15

80

5

0

0

13

73

15

0

0

23

73

5

0
Appendix C-264

Group1 Species Name

CAV Downy woodpecker

CAV Hairy woodpecker

CAV Lewis' woodpecker

Area2

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS5

EEIS CumEff5

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff5

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

80

20

0

0

25

75

0

0

0

25

75

0

0

0

25

75

0

0

0

25

75

0

0

0

0

88

13

0

0

0

85

15

0

0

0

88

13

0

0

0

88

13

0

0

10

47

43

0

0

10

27

47

17

0

15

45

40

0

0

15

15

45

25

0

C

0

0

80

20

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

25

75

0

0

0

33

68

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

89

11

0

0

0

85

15

0

0

0

85

15

0

0

0

10

27

63

O

0

10

17

47

27

0

15

30

55

0

0

15

15

30

40

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

15

59

26

0

10

70

20

0

0

15

75

10

0

0

3

75

23

0

0

3

80

18

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

43

58

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

23

77

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

25

75

2

0

13

68

20

0

0

25

73

3

0

0

25

73

3

0

0

25

73

3

0

0

25

73

3

0

0

58

43

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

63

38

0

0

0

53

40

7

O

0

17

70

13

0

0

45

45

10

0

0

0

80

20

0

3

0

15

70

15

0

0

18

78

5

0

0

23

75

3

0

0

13

60

8

0

0

13

80

8

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

83

18

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

0

43

53

3

0

0

17

67

17

0

0

35

60

5

0

0

0

75

25

0
Appendix C-265

Group1 Species Name

CAV Pileated woodpecker

CAV Pygmy nuthatch

CAV Red-naped sapsucker

CAV Three-toed woodpecker

Area2

EEIS BLM/FS5

EElS CumEff5

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff5

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

25

43

32

0

0

25

43

32

0

0

25

50

25

0

0

25

50

25

0

0

88

13

0

0

0

88

13

0

0

0

88

13

0

0

0

88

13

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

c

0

10

40

50

0

0

10

40

50

0

0

15

35

50

0

0

15

35

50

0

0

13

88

0

0

0

13

88

0

0

0

3

98

0

0

0

3

98

0

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

10

89

1

0

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

3

97

0

0

0

3

97

0

0

0

3

97

0

0

0

3

97

0

0

0

43

55

3

0

0

43

55

3

0

0

43

55

3

0

0

43

55

3

0

0

45

30

25

0

0

43

33

25

0

0

45

30

25

0

0

43

33

25

0

0

20

60

20

2

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

3

40

58

0

0

3

40

58

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

25

75

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

25

75

0

0

0

5

88

8

0

3

0

47

53

0

0

0

47

53

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

20

78

3

0

0

20

78

3

0

0

20

78

3

0

0

20

78

3

0

0

19

56

25

0

0

14

61

25

0

0

19

56

25

0

0

14

61

25

0

0

15

79

6

0
Appendix C-266

Group1 Species Name

CAV Vaux's swift

CAV White-breasted nuthatch

CAV White-headed woodpecker

Area2

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS5

EElS CumEff5

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff5

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS5

EElS CumEff5

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

45

55

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

3

23

40

33

0

0

3

57

40

0

10

23

33

33

0

0

10

57

33

0

88

13

0

0

0

88

13

0

0

0

83

17

0

0

0

83

17

0

0

0

63

38

0

0

0

63

38

0

0

C

0

10

88

3

0

0

10

89

1

0

0

10

88

3

0

0

0

27

73

0

0

0

0

93

7

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

0

87

13

0

8

88

5

0

0

8

93

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

0

35

53

13

0

0

35

53

13

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

20

60

20

0

0

20

59

21

0

0

20

59

21

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

25

75

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

25

75

0

0

43

55

3

0

0

43

55

3

0

0

37

63

0

0

0

37

63

0

0

0

2

78

20

0

0

2

65

33

2

0

5

88

8

0

0

5

88

8

0

0

5

88

8

0

0

3

27

67

3

0

0

10

70

20

0

3

27

70

0

0

0

10

70

20

0

20

80

0

0

0

23

78

0

0

0

27

73

0

0

0

27

73

0

0

0

33

68

0

0

0

25

75

0

0

3

0

15

79

6

0

0

15

81

4

0

0

15

81

4

0

0

10

87

3

0

0

0

63

33

3

0

10

87

3

0

0

0

63

33

3

0

18

75

8

0

0

18

75

8

0

0

23

60

17

0

0

23

60

17

0

0

23

48

30

0

0

20

50

30

0
Appendix C-267

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff5

CAV Williamson's sapsucker EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Cuckoos, Hummingbirds, and

FOR Black-chinned hummingbird EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

FOR Broad-tailed hummingbird UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

63

38

0

0

0

63

38

0

0

0

88

13

0

0

0

88

13

0

0

0

88

13

0

0

0

88

13

0

0

C

0

0

33

55

13

0

0

33

55

13

0

10

70

20

0

0

10

70

20

0

0

5

75

20

0

0

5

75

20

0

Passerines

0

23

78

0

0

0

23

78

0

0

0

23

78

0

0

0

23

78

0

0

3

58

40

0

0

3

58

40

0

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

85

15

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

85

15

0

0

3

70

28

0

0

0

58

40

3

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

2

78

20

0

0

2

70

28

0

0

25

55

20

0

0

25

53

23

0

0

28

58

15

0

0

28

55

18

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

53

43

5

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

53

43

5

0

0

53

43

5

0

0

45

51

4

2

0

30

70

0

0

0

25

75

0

0

0

28

63

10

0

0

25

65

10

0

0

23

55

23

0

0

23

53

25

0

0

13

70

18

0

0

8

63

28

3

0

13

70

18

0

0

5

63

30

3

0

13

68

20

0

0

5

63

33

0

3

0

28

43

30

0

0

25

45

30

0

0

25

65

10

0

0

25

63

13

0

0

25

65

10

0

0

25

63

13

0

0

13

70

18

0

0

6

65

28

1

0

13

70

18

0

0

6

65

28

1

0

8

69

24

0

0

5

61

34

0
Appendix C-268

Group1 Species Name

FOR Chestnut-backed chickadee

FOR Hammond's flycatcher

FOR Lazuli bunting

FOR Olive-sided flycatcher

Area2

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

0

83

17

0

0

0

83

17

0

0

17

83

0

0

0

17

83

0

0

35

65

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

0

35

65

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

0

0

38

62

0

0

0

38

62

0

0

0

64

36

0

0

0

64

36

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

C

0

0

75

25

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

0

83

17

0

0

0

83

17

0

0

0

58

43

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

68

33

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

24

76

0

0

0

20

67

13

0

0

44

56

0

0

0

26

68

6

0

0

0

64

36

0

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

35

60

5

0

0

30

60

10

0

0

40

55

5

0

0

30

60

10

0

18

70

12

0

0

14

70

16

0

0

36

61

3

0

0

16

74

10

0

0

0

51

49

0

2

0

20

57

23

0

0

20

57

23

0

0

20

57

23

0

0

20

57

23

0

0

20

70

10

0

0

10

60

30

0

0

20

70

10

0

0

10

60

30

0

0

37

63

0

0

0

23

68

9

0

0

52

48

0

0

0

28

68

4

0

0

4

77

19

0

3

0

37

63

0

0

0

37

63

0

0

0

37

63

0

0

0

37

63

0

0

0

23

70

8

0

0

13

68

20

0

0

23

70

8

0

0

13

68

20

0

0

39

61

0

0

0

23

67

10

0

0

51

49

0

0

0

28

64

8

0

0

2

77

21

0

2

2

2

2
Group1 Species Name

FOR Rufous hummingbird

FOR Rufous-sided towhee

FOR Western bluebird

Area2

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

0

61

39

0

0

0

61

39

0

0

0

66

34

0

0

0

66

34

0

0

0

44

56

0

0

0

44

56

0

0

0

48

52

0

0

0

48

52

0

0

0

88

13

0

0

0

88

13

0

0

C

0

0

57

43

0

0

0

84

16

0

0

0

67

33

0

0

41

59

0

0

0

34

59

8

0

0

51

49

0

0

0

34

59

8

0

0

65

35

0

0

0

59

41

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

63

37

0

0

0

3

98

0

0

0

0

98

3

0

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

35

63

2

0

0

61

39

0

0

0

42

58

0

0

33

50

18

0

0

10

50

40

0

0

33

48

20

0

0

10

50

40

0

0

63

37

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

68

32

0

0

0

64

36

0

0

0

10

40

40

10

0

0

40

40

20

2

0

0

54

46

0

0

10

79

11

0

0

0

63

37

0

0

48

53

0

0

0

16

65

19

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

16

65

19

0

0

48

52

0

0

0

47

53

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

49

51

0

0

0

63

38

0

0

0

49

36

15

0

3

0

0

53

47

0

0

6

82

12

0

0

0

64

36

0

0

49

51

0

0

0

18

64

19

0

0

51

49

0

0

0

18

64

19

0

0

48

52

0

0

0

46

54

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

48

52

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

29

51

20

0

Appendix C-269
Apeendix C-270

Group1 Species Name

FOR Western tanager

FOR White-winged crossbill

FOR Wilson's warbler

Area2

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

88

13

0

0

0

88

13

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

88

12

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

88

12

0

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

0

76

24

0

0

0

76

24

0

0

0

80

20

0

Period/Outcome4

c

0

3

98

0

0

0

0

98

3

0

90

10

0

0

0

88

12

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

88

12

0

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

0

48

52

0

0

0

48

52

0

0

0

61

39

0

1

0

10

40

40

10

0

0

40

40

20

70

30

0

0

0

46

40

14

0

0

72

28

0

0

0

46

40

14

0

0

0

0

65

35

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

0

65

35

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

0

43

57

0

0

0

43

57

0

0

0

45

55

0

2

0

63

38

0

0

0

49

36

15

0

90

10

0

0

0

58

34

8

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

58

34

8

0

0

0

0

85

15

0

0

15

70

15

0

0

0

85

15

0

0

15

70

15

0

0

0

58

42

0

0

0

58

42

0

0

0

59

41

0

3

0

43

58

0

0

0

26

54

20

0

90

10

0

0

0

58

34

8

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

58

34

8

0

0

0

15

85

0

0

0

35

65

0

0

0

15

85

0

0

0

35

65

0

0

0

0

71

29

0

0

0

71

29

0

0

0

74

26

0
Appendix C-271

Group1 Species Name

FOR Winter wren

GS Black rosy finch

GS Bobolink

Area2

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

0

80

20

0

5

75

20

0

0

5

75

20

0

0

10

83

8

0

0

10

83

8

0

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

62

38

0

0

0

66

34

0

0

0

66

34

0

C

0

0

61

39

0

0

16

68

16

0

0

3

53

45

0

0

25

68

8

0

0

5

63

33

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

62

38

0

0

0

42

58

0

0

6

62

32

0

0

0

64

36

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

45

55

0

0

3

43

55

0

0

0

33

61

6

0

10

55

35

0

0

0

30

64

6

0

0

0

67

33

0

0

0

67

33

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

44

56

0

0

0

28

72

0

0

50

48

0

0

0

46

54

2

0

0

59

41

0

0

25

55

20

0

0

5

53

43

0

0

33

55

13

0

0

10

50

40

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

6

74

20

0

0

10

45

45

0

0

18

64

18

0

0

12

58

30

3

0

0

74

26

0

0

18

48

35

0

0

0

43

58

0

0

25

49

26

0

0

5

43

53

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

4

64

32

0

0

4

44

52

0

0

16

56

28

0

0

12

53

35

2

2
Appendix C-272

Group1 Species Name

GS Brewer's blackbird

GS Brewer's sparrow

GS Grasshopper sparrow

GS Horned lark

Area2

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

92

8

0

0

0

92

8

0

0

0

92

8

0

0

0

92

8

0

0

0

71

29

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

0

64

36

0

0

0

68

32

0

0

0

0

0

42

58

0

18

74

8

0

0

0

26

66

8

0

0

40

56

4

0

2

42

56

0

0

C

90

10

0

0

0

57

33

10

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

57

33

10

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

12

53

32

3

0

22

60

14

4

0

0

47

45

8

0

0

0

0

6

94

0

0

0

6

94

0

0

6

86

8

0

0

16

82

2

54

46

0

0

0

Period/Outcome4

1

65

29

6

0

0

20

54

26

0

0

65

29

6

0

0

30

54

16

0

0

2

26

58

14

0

0

11

57

32

0

2

26

56

16

0

0

8

53

39

0

0

0

0

6

94

0

0

0

6

94

0

0

6

80

14

0

0

14

84

2

57

43

0

0

0

2

89

11

0

0

0

26

52

22

0

0

89

11

0

0

0

26

52

22

0

0

4

28

54

14

0

0

12

50

38

0

4

30

50

16

0

0

12

50

38

0

0

0

0

21

79

0

0

0

19

81

0

0

16

73

11

0

2

22

74

2

74

26

0

0

0

3

86

14

0

0

0

23

53

24

0

0

86

14

0

0

0

23

53

24

0

0

0

25

54

21

0

0

10

48

40

2

0

27

52

21

0

0

10

48

40

2

0

0

0

8

92

0

0

0

8

92

0

0

15

74

11

0

0

20

80

0

71

29

0

0

0
Appendix C-273

Group1 Species Name

GS Lark sparrow

GS Loggerhead shrike

GS Sage sparrow

Area2

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS Cum/Eff

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

2

42

56

0

0

2

42

56

0

0

2

42

56

0

0

67

33

0

0

0

71

29

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

64

36

0

0

0

34

66

0

0

0

34

66

0

0

0

34

66

0

0

0

34

66

0

0

0

77

23

0

0

0

81

19

0

0

0

C

51

49

0

0

0

54

46

0

0

0

51

49

0

0

0

58

42

0

0

0

2

49

42

7

0

20

62

14

4

0

0

47

45

8

0

11

48

41

0

0

8

28

40

22

2

11

48

41

0

0

8

28

40

22

2

66

34

0

0

0

4

56

34

6

0

Period/Outcome4

1

10

48

42

0

0

57

43

0

0

0

10

48

42

0

0

2

26

58

14

0

0

9

59

32

0

2

26

56

16

0

0

8

53

39

0

1

26

45

28

0

0

10

40

46

4

1

31

43

25

0

0

10

42

46

2

7

41

46

6

0

0

19

53

28

0

2

11

49

40

0

0

74

26

0

0

0

11

49

40

0

0

4

28

54

14

0

0

12

56

32

0

4

30

50

16

0

0

12

50

38

0

4

25

44

27

0

0

14

53

33

0

3

31

41

25

0

0

14

55

31

0

10

44

40

6

0

0

22

50

28

0

3

11

49

40

0

0

74

26

0

0

0

11

49

40

0

0

0

25

54

21

0

0

10

56

34

0

0

27

52

21

0

0

10

54

34

2

2

25

42

31

0

0

8

28

61

3

2

30

38

30

0

0

10

29

58

3

2

42

48

8

0

0

20

50

30

0
Appendix C-274

Group1 Species Name

GS Sage thrasher

GS Vesper sparrow

GS Western meadowlark

Area2

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

77

23

0

0

0

81

19

0

0

0

71

29

0

0

0

75

25

0

0

0

64

36

0

0

0

68

32

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

86

14

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

86

14

0

0

0

92

8

0

0

0

92

8

0

0

0

92

8

0

0

0

C

66

34

0

0

0

2

58

34

6

0

60

40

0

0

0

2

51

41

6

0

40

44

12

4

0

0

51

43

6

0

64

36

0

0

0

40

49

11

0

0

66

34

0

0

0

40

48

12

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

Period/Outcome4

1

7

41

46

6

0

0

19

53

28

0

26

58

14

0

0

12

55

33

0

2

26

56

16

0

0

10

56

34

0

30

54

16

0

0

4

54

42

0

0

30

54

16

0

0

4

53

43

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

41

59

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

2

10

44

40

6

0

0

22

50

28

0

4

28

54

14

0

0

15

54

31

0

4

30

50

16

0

0

15

54

31

0

35

51

14

0

0

6

57

37

0

0

35

51

14

0

0

6

55

39

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

49

51

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

3

2

42

48

8

0

0

20

50

30

0

0

25

54

21

0

0

14

53

33

0

0

27

52

21

0

0

12

51

35

2

30

54

16

0

0

4

54

42

0

0

30

54

16

0

0

4

53

43

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

43

57

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

2
Appendix C-275

Group1 Species Name

RIP Red-eyed vireo

RIP Red-winged blackbird

RIP Veery

Area2

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

92

8

0

0

0

0

0

65

35

0

0

0

73

28

0

0

0

65

35

0

0

0

75

25

0

2

84

14

0

0

2

84

14

0

0

2

84

14

0

0

2

84

14

0

0

0

28

72

0

0

0

28

72

0

0

0

62

38

0

0

0

62

38

0

0

C

90

10

0

0

0

0

0

38

63

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

38

63

0

0

56

44

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

56

44

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

4

58

38

0

0

2

40

58

0

0

6

61

33

0

0

4

41

55

0

Period/Outcome4

1

41

59

0

0

0

0

0

34

66

0

0

0

19

81

0

0

0

38

63

0

0

0

26

74

0

0

34

66

0

0

0

12

67

21

0

0

34

66

0

0

0

12

67

21

0

0

4

49

47

0

0

2

28

70

0

0

5

53

42

0

0

2

32

66

0

2

49

51

0

0

0

0

0

51

49

0

0

0

36

64

0

0

0

56

44

0

0

0

39

61

0

0

71

29

0

0

0

27

62

11

0

0

71

29

0

0

0

27

62

11

0

0

8

64

28

0

0

4

55

41

0

0

10

66

24

0

0

6

47

47

0

3

43

57

0

0

0

0

0

48

53

0

0

0

38

63

0

0

0

53

48

0

0

0

44

56

0

0

73

27

0

0

0

25

64

11

0

0

73

27

0

0

0

29

60

11

0

0

8

58

34

0

0

2

50

48

0

0

10

64

26

0

0

4

46

50

0
Appendix C-276

Group1 Species Name

RIP Willow flycatcher

RIP Yellow warbler

RIP Yellow-billed cuckoo

RIP Yellow-breasted chat

Area2

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

Outcome3

1

0

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

44

56

0

0

0

46

54

0

0

0

44

56

0

0

0

58

42

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

62

38

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

62

38

0

0

0

0

55

45

0

0

0

56

44

0

0

0

66

34

0

0

0

69

31

0

0

55

45

0

0

C

0

2

56

42

0

0

0

42

58

0

0

2

56

42

0

0

0

42

58

0

0

0

64

36

0

0

0

49

51

0

0

0

64

36

0

0

0

49

51

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

54

46

0

0

0

13

88

0

0

49

51

0

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

27

73

0

0

0

42

58

0

0

0

27

73

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

33

67

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

33

67

0

0

0

0

28

73

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

0

28

73

0

0

0

11

89

0

0

41

59

0

2

0

2

54

44

0

0

0

42

58

0

0

2

54

44

0

0

0

42

58

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

53

47

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

53

47

0

0

0

0

53

48

0

0

0

28

73

0

0

0

53

48

0

0

0

29

71

0

0

61

39

0

3

0

2

55

43

0

0

0

38

62

0

0

2

55

43

0

0

0

42

58

0

0

0

67

33

0

0

0

49

51

0

0

0

67

33

0

0

0

49

51

0

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

26

74

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

28

73

0

0

54

46

0
Appendix C-277

Group1 Species Name

WD Ash-throated flycatcher

WD Bushtit

WD Chipping sparrow

Area2

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

Outcome3

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

60

40

0

0

0

55

45

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

15

63

23

0

0

15

63

23

0

0

15

61

24

0

0

15

61

24

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

65

35

0

0

0

65

35

0

95

5

0

0

0

95

5

0

0

0

C

0

0

36

64

0

0

0

49

51

0

0

0

36

64

0

24

65

11

0

0

24

65

11

0

0

24

64

13

0

0

24

64

13

0

0

0

25

65

10

0

0

25

65

10

0

0

25

65

10

0

0

25

65

10

0

93

8

0

0

0

86

14

0

0

0

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

44

56

0

0

0

30

70

0

10

58

30

3

0

5

53

35

8

0

10

56

31

3

0

5

53

35

8

0

0

20

55

25

0

0

20

55

25

0

0

15

55

30

0

0

15

55

30

0

93

8

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

2

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

63

38

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

13

51

31

5

0

23

54

24

0

0

13

50

33

5

0

23

54

24

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

95

5

0

0

0

64

36

0

0

0

3

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

61

39

0

0

0

50

50

0

5

48

35

13

0

0

39

43

19

0

5

46

36

13

0

0

39

43

19

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

60

40

0

95

5

0

0

0

64

36

0

0

0
Appendix C-278

Group1 Species Name

WD Green-tailed towhee

BAT Fringed myotis

BAT Hoary bat

Area2

 (

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

Bats and

EEIS BLM/FS5

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS5

EEIS CumEff

Outcome3

 H

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Small

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

95

5

0

0

0

95

5

0

0

0

0

35

65

0

0

0

35

65

0

0

0

35

65

0

0

0

35

65

0

0

Mammals

0

35

63

2

0

0

35

63

2

0

0

28

70

2

0

0

35

63

2

0

0

78

22

0

0

0

78

22

0

0

C

93

8

0

0

0

86

14

0

0

0

0

58

43

0

0

0

58

43

0

0

0

58

43

0

0

0

58

43

0

0

0

0

33

60

7

0

0

22

65

13

0

0

33

60

7

0

0

22

65

13

0

6

70

22

2

0

0

56

30

14

Period/Outcome4

1

93

8

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

0

26

71

3

0

0

26

71

3

0

0

26

71

3

0

0

26

71

3

0

0

0

17

47

36

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

17

48

35

0

0

0

22

78

0

0

43

47

10

0

0

13

37

50

2

95

5

0

0

0

64

36

0

0

0

0

56

44

0

0

0

56

44

0

0

0

56

44

0

0

0

56

44

0

0

0

2

43

43

12

0

0

3

47

50

0

5

48

45

2

0

0

3

47

50

0

14

50

31

5

0

0

20

51

29

3

95

5

0

0

0

64

36

0

0

0

0

49

51

0

0

0

49

51

0

0

0

49

51

0

0

0

49

51

0

0

0

7

45

42

6

0

0

10

40

50

0

7

45

42

6

0

0

10

43

47

0

22

34

28

16

0

0

18

52

30
Appendix C-279

Group1 Species Name

BAT Long-eared myotis

BAT Long-legged myotis

BAT Pale western big-eared bat

Area2 Outcome3

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS5

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS5

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS5

EEIS CumEff

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

78

22

0

0

0

78

22

0

0

0

62

38

0

0

0

62

38

0

0

0

62

38

0

0

0

62

38

0

0

0

65

35

0

0

0

65

35

0

0

0

65

35

0

0

0

65

35

0

0

0

6

78

14

2

0

6

78

14

2

C

0

4

70

24

2

0

0

56

30

14

0

0

50

44

6

0

0

28

56

16

0

0

50

44

6

0

0

28

56

16

0

0

44

46

10

0

0

23

58

20

0

0

44

46

10

0

0

23

58

20

0

0

12

72

16

0

0

12

68

20

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

45

48

7

0

0

5

40

55

0

0

36

56

8

0

0

8

38

54

0

0

37

57

6

0

0

8

39

53

0

0

24

54

22

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

35

46

19

0

0

0

31

69

0

0

2

52

46

0

0

0

24

76

2

0

14

49

33

4

0

0

20

54

26

0

10

50

35

5

0

0

19

48

33

0

5

55

35

5

0

0

19

48

33

0

14

56

30

0

0

0

5

61

34

0

11

60

25

4

0

0

5

59

36

0

0

13

78

9

0

0

2

46

52

3

0

20

30

36

14

0

0

17

53

30

0

10

50

30

10

0

0

21

51

28

0

10

50

30

10

0

0

21

49

30

0

13

45

42

0

0

0

15

50

35

0

13

50

30

7

0

0

15

53

33

0

0

20

69

11

0

0

3

40

57

2
Appendix C-280

Group1 Species Name

BAT Silver-haired bat

BAT Spotted bat

BAT Western small-footed myotis

SMM Northern flying squirrel

Area2 Outcome3

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS5

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS5

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS5

UCRB BLM/FS5

EEIS BLM/FS5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

6

78

14

2

0

6

78

14

2

0

52

46

2

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

52

46

2

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

0

5

90

5

0

0

5

90

5

0

0

5

90

5

0

0

5

90

5

0

80

20

0

0

0

80

20

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

c

0

0

12

72

16

0

0

12

70

18

0

2

54

44

0

0

0

40

46

14

0

2

54

44

0

0

0

40

46

14

0

0

5

75

20

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

5

75

20

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

15

40

33

13

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

2

54

44

0

0

0

25

75

0

0

30

48

22

0

0

7

42

51

0

0

34

44

22

0

0

7

43

50

0

0

3

55

43

0

0

0

43

58

0

0

3

58

40

0

0

0

45

55

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

70

30

0

0

29

51

20

2

0

0

13

79

8

0

0

2

44

54

0

15

63

18

4

0

2

26

32

40

0

18

61

17

4

0

2

26

33

39

0

0

3

65

33

0

0

0

53

48

0

0

3

68

30

0

0

0

55

45

0

0

50

30

20

0

0

50

30

20

0

24

51

20

5

3

0

0

30

59

11

0

0

3

41

56

0

10

63

22

5

0

0

18

43

39

0

10

62

25

3

0

0

18

43

39

0

0

5

75

20

0

0

0

55

45

0

0

5

75

20

0

0

0

55

45

0

10

60

30

0

0

10

60

30

0

0

25

54

21

0
Appendix C-281

Group1 Species Name

SMM Pygmy rabbit

SMM White-tailed jackrabbit

CAR American marten

Area2 Outcome3

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

UCRB BLM/FS

EEIS BLM/FS

EElS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

83

18

0

0

0

90

10

0

0

0

83

18

0

0

0

0

40

50

10

0

0

40

50

10

20

80

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

20

80

0

0

0

Carnivores and Ungulates

EEIS BLM/FS5

EElS CumEff5

UCRB BLM/FS5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

24

42

34

0

0

C

0

10

43

33

15

0

15

40

33

13

0

10

45

33

13

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

20

80

0

0

0

10

20

60

10

0

20

80

0

0

0

10

20

60

10

0

4

22

42

32

0

4

22

42

32

0

12

34

26

28

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

5

43

53

0

0

40

32

28

0

0

5

46

49

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

20

80

0

0

0

10

20

60

10

0

20

80

0

0

0

10

20

60

10

0

2

10

36

52

0

0

8

29

63

0

2

17

41

40

2

0

0

18

44

39

0

25

53

20

2

0

0

20

45

35

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

20

80

0

0

0

10

20

60

10

0

20

80

0

0

0

10

20

60

10

0

4

50

46

0

0

2

12

33

53

0

20

60

20

0

3

0

0

20

49

31

0

26

55

10

9

0

0

20

49

31

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

20

80

0

0

0

10

20

60

10

0

20

80

0

0

0

10

20

60

10

0

20

60

20

0

0

4

21

34

41

0

40

50

10

0
Appendix C-282

Group1 Species Name

CAR Fisher

CAR Gray wolf

CAR Grizzly bear

Area2 Outcome3

UCRB CumEff5

EEIS BLM/FS5

EEIS CumEff5

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff5

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

24

42

34

0

0

0

12

22

34

32

0

12

22

34

32

0

40

40

20

0

0

40

40

20

0

40

50

10

0

0

36

48

16

0

0

68

30

2

0

0

68

30

2

0

0

44

44

10

2

0

46

46

8

0

0

62

32

6

0

0

C

0

4

16

30

50

0

0

14

84

0

0

2

10

88

0

0

40

40

20

0

0

2

14

84

12

42

46

0

0

0

4

8

42

46

22

43

35

0

0

4

4

4

42

46

0

0

12

40

48

0

0

2

8

90

8

4

10

38

40

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

16

27

57

0

0

1

13

86

0

0

0

8

92

0

0

20

50

30

0

0

3

22

75

8

42

46

4

0

0

2

8

43

47

18

44

34

4

0

0

0

8

46

46

0

0

4

47

49

0

0

0

6

94

4

6

6

44

40

2

0

2

21

39

38

0

0

28

24

48

0

0

2

10

88

0

0

70

20

10

0

0

1

31

68

12

47

41

0

0

0

6

6

44

44

22

43

35

0

0

0

1

9

46

44

0

0

4

50

46

0

0

0

8

92

5

6

6

43

40

3

0

6

44

37

13

0

1

12

25

62

0

0

12

20

68

0

0

20

50

30

0

0

16

43

41

20

48

32

0

0

0

10

14

44

32

36

39

25

0

0

0

3

16

50

31

0

4

11

49

36

0

2

4

19

75

10

4

16

40

30

2
Group1

 Species Name

CAR Lynx

CAR Wolverine

UNG California bighorn sheep

Area2

 Outcome3

UCRB CumEff

EEIS BLM/FS5

EEIS CumEff5

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff5

EEIS BLM/FS5

EEIS CumEff5

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff5

EEIS BLM/FS5

EEIS CumEff5

UCRB BLM/FS5

1

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

58

32

10

0

0

0

10

80

10

0

0

10

80

10

0

0

10

80

10

0

0

10

80

10

0

0

10

80

10

0

0

0

36

30

34

0

10

80

10

0

0

0

36

30

34

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

c

0

0

4

8

88

0

0

12

40

48

0

0

0

42

58

0

0

12

40

48

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

12

40

48

0

0

0

38

62

0

4

20

44

32

0

0

0

4

96

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

40

60

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

2

10

88

0

0

0

42

58

0

0

4

15

81

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

4

15

81

0

0

4

47

49

0

0

0

0

100

0

7

13

41

39

0

0

0

2

98

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

40

60

2

0

0

4

8

88

0

0

0

42

58

0

0

4

15

81

0

0

0

42

58

0

0

4

15

81

0

0

4

50

46

0

0

0

6

94

0

9

12

43

36

0

0

0

8

92

0

0

0

40

60

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

0

40

60

3

2

4

6

8

80

0

2

17

41

40

0

0

0

42

58

0

2

20

44

34

0

0

0

42

58

0

0

11

54

35

0

0

19

21

60

0

9

21

50

20

0

0

26

23

51

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

o

10

90

0

0

0

10

90

2

Appendix C-283
1

 Group: PLT - vascular plants; AMP - amphibians; REP - reptiles; WAT - waterbirds and shorebirds; GAM - gamebirds; RAP -

raptors; CAV - cavity ncster; FOR - forest birds; GS - grassland/shrub birds; RIP - riparian birds; WD - woodland birds; BAT -

bat; SMM - small mammal; CAR - carnivore; UNG - ungulate.

2

 Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff- all

lands in Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and

Forest Service lands only; UCRB CumEff- all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

3

 Outcome: 1- contiguous; 2 - gaps; 3 - patchy; 4 - isolated; 5 - scarce. See figure C.I for a complete description.

4 Period/Option: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; 1 - Option 1; 2 - Option 2; 3 - Option 3.

5

 Species for which panelists' scores were adjusted by Science Team. Scores were adjusted when considered to reflect a misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of the management alternatives or their outcomes, or the species ecology.

Appendix C-284

Group1 Species Name

UNG Pronghorn

UNG Woodland caribou

Area2 Outcome3

UCRB CumEff5

EEIS BLM/FS5

EEIS CumEff5

UCRB BLM/FS5

UCRB CumEff6

EEIS BLM/FS

EEIS CumEff

UCRB BLM/FS

UCRB CumEff

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

H

0

0

50

50

0

0

10

80

10

0

0

10

80

10

0

10

80

10

0

0

10

80

10

0

0

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

50

50

c

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

50

50

0

0

0

20

50

30

0

60

30

10

0

0

0

60

40

0

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

Period/Outcome4

1

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

25

60

15

0

0

10

50

40

0

20

60

20

0

0

0

10

50

40

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

2

0

0

0

30

70

0

0

70

30

0

0

0

10

50

40

0

70

30

0

0

0

0

10

50

40

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

100

3

0

0

0

10

90

0

0

25

60

15

0

0

10

50

40

0

20

60

20

0

0

0

10

50

40

0

0

0

46

54

0

0

0

42

58

0

0

0

46

54

0

0

0

42

58
Figure C-l—Habitat and population outcome scales.

Appendix C-285
APPENDIX D.

CURRENT AND PROJECTED OUTCOMES FOR SPECIES

WITH CURRENT OUTCOMES OF 4 OR 5.

(See appendix C for presentation of definitions and outcomes of viability for individual species.)

This appendix presents projected habitat outcomes on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management

lands (outcome rating system is described in appendix C) for individual species with current Outcomes of

4 and 5 (patchy/poorly distributed habitat with concern of extirpation/viability loss). Outcomes for

vascular plant and vertebrate species were analyzed in two EIS planning areas of the Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project—eastern Oregon and Washington, (EEIS) (tables D-l, D-2, and D3); and, Idaho and western Montana, (UCRB) (tables D-4, D-5, and D-6).

The analysis is intended to describe likely future conditions for habitats and species given specific management options, and provide for comparison of those conditions to current conditions. Projected future

conditions that result in improvements from current conditions should generally be considered as positive

outcomes. Projected declines from current conditions may be viewed as negative.

The risk of extirpation/viability loss for a given species was estimated in two ways: (1) by a weighted mean

Outcome of 4 or 5, and (2) by the number of likelihood points in Outcome 5 (see Evaluation of Alternatives—Terrestrial, Methodology section). The Science Integration Team chose 20 or more points in Outcome 5 as a conservative threshold of extirpation. Tables D-l and D-4 display the species with 20 or

more risk likelihood points in Outcome 5 for current conditions or three management options. A species

with a "D5" listing in these tables would have the highest risk of extirpation/viability loss compared with

other scores and outcomes. To be considered an "increaser," weighted mean outcome needed to improve

by 0.5 or more from the current condition for a given species.

Option 1 results in the highest number of species at risk of extirpation with 20 or more points in Outcome 5 compared to the other options. Options 2 and 3 equally, would have the lowest number of species at risk of extirpation. As a group, carnivores and ungulates would have relatively higher risk of

extirpation/viability loss, compared with other species groups considered in this assessment. Option 1

would result in the highest number of species (25 in UCRB, and 19 in EEIS) that change from a high

likelihood of persistence and viability of having a risk of extirpation/viability loss, out of the total species

analyzed (132 and 141, respectively). Percentage-wise, Option 1 would have a negative effect on species,

while Options 2 and 3 effect a relatively low number of species.

Options 2 and 3 would result in significant improvements in conditions and viability outcomes for 15 to

20 species (tables D-3 and D-5), whereas Option 1 would not improve conditions for any species. Each

option would result in declining conditions for at least some species (tables D-2 and D-6). "Decreaser"

species have a weighted mean score of 3.4 or less for current conditions with projected outcomes for an

option being 3.5 or greater.

Source: Quigley, Thomas M.; Lee, Kris; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the Science Integration

Team. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. XX p. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific

Assessment).

Appendix D-287
Appendix D-288

Table D-l—Species with at least 20 or more likelihood points in viability in Outcome 5, under current conditions

or under projected management options for FS/BLM lands in eastern Oregon and Washington.

Category

Plants:

Crenulate grape-fern

Howellia

Suksdorf's lomatium

Washington polemonium

Spalding's campion

Malheur wire-lettuce

Amphibians/Reptiles:

Columbian spotted frog

Northern leopard frog

Oregon spotted frog

Tailed frog

Wood house's toad

Long-nosed leopard lizard

Sharptail snake

Waterbirds/Shorebirds:

Goldeneyes

Harlequin duck

Upland sandpiper

Raptors/Gamebirds:

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

Mountain quail

Boreal owl

Flam mutated owl

Great gray owl

Woodpeckers, Nuthatches, &

Black-backed woodpecker

Lewis' woodpecker

Red-naped sapsucker

Three-toed woodpecker

Vaux's swift

White-headed woodpecker

Williamson's sapsucker

Current

A4

B4

C5

C5

C5

D5

A4

C5

A4

A3

A4

A4

C5

A4

C5

D5

C5

A4

B4

B4

B4

Swifts:

A3

A4

A3

A3

A4

A4

A3

Cuckoos, Passerines, & Hummingbirds:

Black-rosy finch

Bobolink

Grasshopper sparrow

Yellow-billed cuckoo

A4

B4

C5

C5

Option 1

B4

B4

C5

C5

C5

D5

B4

C5

B4

B4

C5

B4

C5

B4

C5

D5

C5

B4

B4

B4

B4

B4

C5

B4

B4

C5

B4

B4

B4

C5

C5

C5

Option 2

B4

B4

C5

B5

B4

D5

C4

C4

C5

B4

B4

B4

C5

B5

Option 3

B4

C5

C5

C5

D5

C4

B4

B4

C5

B4

B4

B4

C5

C5
Includes all species with at least 20 points in outcome 5 for any option. Weighted mean scores are included for

reference.

A= 0-19 points in Outcome 5

B = 20-49 points in Outcome 5

C = 50-99 points in Outcome 5

D=100 points in Outcome 5

3 = Favorable outcome.

4/5 = Less favorable outcome.

Source: Quigley, Thomas M.; Lee, Kris; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the Science Integration

Team. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, ORJ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. XX p. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific

Assessment).

Appendix D-289

Table D-l—(continued) Species with at least 20 or more likelihood points in viability in Outcome 5, under current

conditions or under projected management options for FS/BLM lands in eastern Oregon and Washington.

Category

Bats & Small Mammals:

Fringed myotis

Hoary bat

Long-legged myotis

Pale western big-earred bat

Silver-haired bat

Spotted bat

Western small-footed myotis

Northern flying squirrel

Pgymy rabbit

Carnivores & Ungulates:

American marten

Fisher

Grizzly bear

Lynx

Wolverine

California bighorn sheep

Total of "B"

Total of "C"

Total of "D"

Grand Total

Current

A4

A3

B4

A4

A3

B4

A3

A4

A4

B4

C5

B4

B4

B4

C5

D5

Option 1

B4

B4

B4

B4

B4

B4

B4

C5

C4

C5

B5

C5

B5

C5

D5

26

18

3

47

Option 2

B4

B4

C5

B4

B4

C5

B4

C5

D5

13

8

2

23

Option 3

B4

C5

B4

B4

B4

C5

D5

10

9

2

21
Table D-2—Outcomes for species that currently have a "favorable" outcome (3.4 or less) changing to a "less favorable" outcome (3.5 or greater), under management options on FS/BLM lands in eastern Oregon and Washington.

Species

Mulford's milk-vetch

Long-bearded mariposa-lily

Tailed Frog

Black-backed Woodpecker

Piliated Woodpecker

Pygmy Rabbit

Red-naped Sapsucker

Three-toed Woodpecker

White-breasted Nuthatch

Williamson's Sapsucker

Chestnut-backed Chickadee

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Western Bluebird

Winter Wren

Veery

Willow Flycatcher

Yellow Warbler

Bushtit

Hoary Bat

Silver Haired Bat

Western Small-footed Myotis

Total number of species

Percent of total (141) species analyzed

Current

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Option 1

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

19

13

Option 2

4

4

2

>1

Option 3

4

1

<1

Favorable outcome = a weighted mean score of (3.4 or less).

Less favorable outcome = a weighted mean score of (3.5 or more).

Scores were rounded to integers.

Source: Quigley, Thomas M.; Lee, Kris; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the Science Integration

Team. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. XX p. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific

Assessment).

Appendix D-290
Appendix D-291

Table D-3—Species with better viability outcomes (0.5 or more) under management options, than under current

conditions on FS/BLM lands in eastern Oregon and Washington.

Species

Rubber Boa

Sharptail Snake

Oregon Spotted Frog

Wood house's Toad

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse

Sage Grouse

Bald Eagle

Boreal Owl

Cooper's Hawk

Ferruginous Hawk

Flammulated Owl

Harlequin Duck

Lewis' Woodpecker

Piliated Woodpecker

Red-naped Sapsucker

Vaux's Swift

White-headed Woodpecker

Chestnut-backed Chickadee

Hammond's Flycatcher

Western Bluebird

Long-legged Myotis

Northern Flying Squirrel

Marten

Fisher

Woodland Caribou

Current Option 1

3.5*

4.5*

3.6*

3.9*

4.8*

3.2

3.6*

4.2*

2.4

3.0

3.8*

4.5*

3.5*

3.4

3.3

3.7*

3.8*

3.3

3.5*

3.0

3.7*

3.5*

4.0*

4.8*

5.0*

Option 2

4.0

2.3

2.9**

1.9

2.5

2.9**

3.5

2.5**

2.5

2.7

2.7**

2.9**

2.4

3.2**

3.4**

4.2

Option 3

2.9**

3.9

3.1**

3.4**

2.6

3.0**

3.7

3.3**

2.5**

2.6

2.9**

3.1**

2.6

2.9**

3.0**

3.0**

4.5

Total: 25.0 0 16.0 17.0

* = Species with less favorable outcomes (3.5 or more).

** = Favorable outcomes ( 3.4 or less) projected to result from option implementation-- represents a significant

improvement in habitat conditions.

Source: Quigley, Thomas M.; Lee, Kris; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the Science Integration

Team. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. XX p. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. cd. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific

Assessment).
Table D-4—Species with at least 20 or more likelihood points in viability Outcome 5, under current conditions or

under projected management options for FS/BLM lands in Idaho and western Montana.

Category

Plants:

Upward-lobed moonwort

Granulate grape-fern

Palouse goldenweed

Amphibians/Reptiles:

Coeur d'Alene salamander

Northern leopard frog

Tailed frog

Woodhouse's toad

Long-nosed leopard lizard

Waterbirds/shorebirds:

Go Id en eyes

Harlequin duck

Upland sandpiper

Raptors/Gamebirds:

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

Mountain quail

Flammulated owl

Current

A4

A4

C5

B4

C5

A3

A4

A4

A4

C5

D5

C5

C5

B4

Woodpeckers, Nuthatches & Swifts:

Black-backed woodpecker

Lewis' woodpecker

Red-naped sapsucker

Three-toed woodpecker

Vaux's swift

White-headed woodpecker

A3

A3

A3

A3

A4

A4

Cuckoos, Passerines & Hummingbirds:

Bobolink

Grasshopper sparrow

Yellow-billed cuckoo

Bats & Small Mammals:

Fringed myotis

Pale western big-eared bat

Silver-haired bat

Spotted bat

Western small-footed myotis

Northern flying squirrel

Pygmy rabbit

B4

A4

B5

A4

A4

A4

A4

A3

C5

Option 1

C4

C4

C5

C5

C5

B4

B4

B4

B4

C5

D5

C5

C5

B4

B4

C5

B4

B4

C5

B4

B5

C5

B4

B4

B4

B4

B4

A4

C5

Option 2

C4

B4

C5

B4

B4

C5

B4

C4

B5

B4

B4

B4

C5

Option 3

C5

B4

C5

B4

B4

C5

B4

C5

B4

C5

B4

C5

Appendix D-292
Note: Includes all species with at least 20 points in outcome 5 for any option. Weighted mean scores are

included for reference.

Source: Quigley, Thomas M.; Lee, Kris; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the Science Integration

Team. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. XX p. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific

Assessment).

Appendix D-293

Table D-4 (continued)—Species with at least 20 or more likelihood points in viability Outcome 5, under current

conditions or under projected management options for FS/BLM lands in Idaho and western Montana

(continued).

Category

Carnivores&Ungulates:

American marten

Fisher

Grizzly bear

Lynx

Wolverine

California bighorn sheep

Woodland caribou

Total of "B"

Total of "C"

Total of "D"

Grand Total

A = 0-19 points in Outcome 5

B = 20-49 points in Outcome 5

C = 50-99 points in Outcome 5

D = 100 points in Outcome 5

Current

B4

B4

B4

B4

B4

C5

D5

Option

B4

B4

B4

C5

B5

C5

D5

20

14

2

36

3 =

4/5 =

1 Option 2

B4

C5

B4

C5

D5

9

7

1

17

Favorable outcome

= Less Favorable outcome

Option 3

B4

B4

B4

B4

C5

C5

10

8

0

18
Table D-5—Species with better viability outcomes (0.5 or more) under management options, than under current

conditions on FS/BLM lands in Idaho and western Montana.

Species

Lemhi penstemon

Northern Leopard Frog

Harlequin Duck

Band-tailed Pigeon

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse

Sagegrouse

Bald Eagle

Boreal Owl

Cooper's Hawk

Ferruginous Hawk

Flammulated Owl

Great Gray Owl

Lewis' Woodpecker

Piliated Woodpecker

Red-naped Sapsucker

Vaux's Swift

White-headed Woodpecker

Chestnut-backed Chickadee

Hammond's Flycatcher

Western Bluebird

Long-legged Myotis

Silver Haired Bat

Northern Flying Squirrel

Marten

Woodland Caribou

Totals:

Current Option 1

3.7*

4.7*

4.5*

4.1*

4.8*

3.1

3.6*

3.7*

2.4

3.0

3.8*

3.5*

3.4*

3.4

3.2

3.8*

3.8*

3.2

3.4*

3.0

3.7*

3.4

3.5*

3.7*

5.0*

25 0

Option 2

3.1

3.5

3.5

4.0

2.2

2.9**

3.2**

1.9

2.5

2.9**

3.0

2.7**

2.5

2.7

2.7**

2.9**

2.4

3.2**

3.0

3.0**

20

Option 3

3.9

3.4**

2.6

3.0**

3.0**

3.3**

2.7**

2.6

2.9**

3.1**

2.6

2.9**

3.0**

2.7**

4.5

15

* = Species with less favorable outcomes (3.5 or more).

** = Favorable outcomes (3.4 or less) projected to result from option implementation-represents a significant

improvement in habitat conditions.

Source: Quiglcy, Thomas M.; Lee, Kris; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the Science Integration Team. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. XX p. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment).

Appendix D-294
Appendix D-295

Table D-6 Outcomes for species that currently have a favorable" outcome (3.4 or less) changing to a "less favorable" outcome (3.5 or greater), under management options on FS/BLM lands in Idaho and western Montana.

Species Current

Mulford's milk-vetch

Picabo milkvetch

Columbian Spotted Frog

Tailed Frog

Western Frog

Herons, egrets

Great Sandhill Crane

Black-backed Woodpecker

Lewis' Woodpecker

Piliated Woodpecker

Pygmy Rabbit

Red-naped Sapsucker

Three-toed Woodpecker

White-breasted Nuthatch

Williamson's Sapsucker

Broad-tailed Hummingbird

Chestnut-backed Chickadee

Hammond's Flycatcher

Western Bluebird

Wilson's Warbler

Willow Flycatcher

Yellow Warbler

Bushtit

Hoary Bat

Silver Haired Bat

Western Small-footed bat

Total number of species

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Percent of total (132) species analyzed

Option 1

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

24

18%

Option 2

4

4

4

3

2%

Option 3

4

1

<1%

Favorable outcome = a weighted mean score of (3.4 or less).

Less favorable outcome = a weighted mean score of (3.5 or more).

Scores were rounded to integers.

Source: Quigley, Thomas M.; Lee, Kris; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1996. Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the Science Integration

Team. Gen Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland, OR; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. XX p. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific

Assessment).
APPENDIX E.

COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF SPECIES

DISCUSSED IN THE DOCUMENT.

Common name Scientific name1

Flora:

Alder

Bitter brush

Blue-leaved penstemon

Broad-fruit mariposa

Brome-grass

Buck rush

Cheatgrass

Clustered lady's-slipper

Crenulate grape-fern

Crested wheatgrass

Cronquist's stickseed

Douglas-fir

Grand fir

Green-tinged paintbrush

Howellia

Howell's gumweed

Huckleberries

Idaho fescue

Juniper

Kentucky bluegrass

Knapweed

Leafy spurge

Lemhi penstemon

Lodgepole pine

Long-bearded mariposa-lily

Macfarlanes four-o'clock

Malheur wire-lettuce

Manzanita

Mountain hemlock

Mt. Mazama collomia

Mulford's milk-vetch

Alnus Hill

Purshia tridentata (Pursh) DC.

Penstemon glaucinus

Cafochortus nitidus

Bromus L.

Ceanothus cuneatus (Hook.) T. & G.

Bromus tectorum L.

Cypripedium fasciculatum

Botrychium crenulatum

Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.

Hackelia cronquistii

Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco.

Abiesgrandis (Dougl.) Forbes

Castilleja chlorotica

Howellia aquatilis

Grindelia howellii

Vaccinium L.

Festuca idahoensis Elmer

Juniperus L.

Poa pratensis L.

Centaurea L.

Euphorbia esual L.

Penstemon lemhiensis

Pinus contorta Dougl.

Calochortus bngebarbatus var. Longebarbatus

Mirabilis macfarlanei

Stephanomeria malheurensis

Arctostaphybs Adans.

Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carr.

Collomia mazama

Astragalus mulfordiae

Appendix E-297
Osgoodmountains millcvetch

Palouse goldenweed

Paysons milkvetch

Peck's mariposa-lily

Picabo milkvetch

Ponderosa pine

Pygmy monkeyflower

Sagebrush

Spalding's campion

Subalpine fir

Suksdorfs lomatium

Thompsons clover

Twin-spike moonwort

Upward-lobed moonwort

Washington monkeyflower

Washington polemonium

Weak milk-vetch

Western hemlock

Western juniper

Western redcedar

Western white pine

Wheat

White bark pine

White fir

Willow

Astragalus yoder-williamsii

Haplopappus liatriformis

Astragalus paysonii

Calochortus longebarbatus var. Peckii

Astragalus oniciformis

Pinus ponderosa Dougl.

Mimulus pygmaeus

Artemisia L.

Silene spaldingii

Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.

Lomatium suksdorfii

Trifolium thompsonii

Botrychium paradoxum

Botrychium ascendens

Mimulus tuashingtonensis var. Washingtonensis

Polemonium pectinatum

Astragalus solitarius

Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.

Juniperous occidentalis Hook.

Thuja plicata Donn.

Pinus monticola Dougl.

Triticum aestivum L.

Pinus albicaulis Engelm.

Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl.

Salix L.

Fish:

Bass

Bull trout

Brook trout

Chinook salmon

Goose Lake sucker

Klamath Largescale sucker

Lahontan Cutthroat trout

Lost River sucker

Malheur sculpin

Margined sculpin

Pacific lamprey

Pit-Klanath Brook lamprey

Micropterus spp.

Salvelinus confluentus

Salvelinus fontinalis

Oncorhynchus tshauvytscha

Catostomus occidentalis lacusanserinus

Catostomus snyderi

Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi

Deltistes luxatus

Cottus bairdi ssp.

Cottus marginatus

Lampetra tridentata

Lampetra lethophaga

Appendix E-298
Birds:

Pygmy whitefish

Rainbow trout

Redband trout

Shorthead sculpin

Shortnose sucker

Slender sculpin

Sockeye salmon

Steel head

Torrent sculpin

Walleye

Westslope cutthroat trout

Wood River Bridgelip sucker

Wood River sculpin

Yellowstone cutthroat trout

Ash-throated flycatcher

Bald eagle

Band-tailed pigeon

Barred owl

Black-backed woodpecker

Black-capped rosy finch

Black-chinned hummingbird

Blue grouse

Bobolink

Boreal owl

Brewers blackbird

Brewers sparrow

Broad-tailed hummingbird

Burrowing owl

Bushtit

Chestnut-backed chickadee

Chipping sparrow

Chukar

Columbia sharp-tailed grouse

Common loon

Common snipe

Cooper's hawk

Downy woodpecker

Ferruginous hawk

Prosopium coukeri

Oncorhynchus mykiss

Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp.

Cottus confusus

Chasmistes brevirostris

Cottus tenuis

Oncorhynchus nerka

Oncorhynchus mykiss mykiss

Cottus rhotheus

Stizostedion vitreum vitreum

Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi

Catostomus columbianus hubbsi

Cottus leiopomus

Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri

Myiarchus cinerascens

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Columba fasciata

Strix varia

Picoides arcticus

Leucosticte arctoa

Archilochus alexandri

Dendragapus obscurus

Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Aegolius funereus

Euphagus cyanocephalus

Spizella breweri

Selasphorus platycercus

Athene cunicularia

Psaltriparus minimus

Parus rufescens

Spizella passerina

Alectoris chukar

Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus

Gavia immer

Gallinago gallinago

Accipiter cooperii

Picoides pubescens

Buteo regalis

Appendix E-299
Flammulated owl

Grasshopper sparrow

Gray partridge

Greater sandhill crane

Great gray owl

Green-tailed towhee

Hammond's flycatcher

Harlequin duclc

Horned lark

Lark bunting

Lark sparrow

Lazuli bunting

Lewis' woodpecker

Loggerhead shrike

Long-billed curlew

Long-eared owl

Merlin

Mountain quail

Northern goshawk

Northern pygmy-owl

Northern spotted owl

Olive-sided flycatcher

Pileated woodpecker

Pygmy nuthatch

Red-eyed vireo

Red-naped sapsucker

Red-winged blackbird

Ring-necked pheasant

Rufous hummingbird

Rufous-sided towhee

Sage grouse

Sage sparrow

Sage thrasher

Short-eared owl

Southern red-backed vole

Spotted sandpiper

Swainson's hawk

Three-toed woodpecker

Upland sandpiper

Vaux's swift

Otus flammeolus

Ammodramus savannarum

Perdix perdix

Grus canadensis tabida

Strix nebulosa

Pipilo chlorurus

Empidonax hammondii

Histrionicus histrionicus

Eremophila alpestris

Calamospiza melanocorys

Chondestes grammacus

Passerina amoena

Melanerpes lewis

Lanius ludovicianus

Numenius americanus

Asio otus

Falco columbarius

Oreortyx pictus

Accipiter gentilis

Glaucidium gnoma

Strix occidentalis caurina

Contopus borealis

Dryocopus pileatus

Sitta pygmaea

Vireo olivaceus

Sphyrapicus nuchalis

Agelaius phoeniceus

Phasianus colchicus

Selasphorus rufus

Pipilo erythrophthalmus

Centrocercus urophasianus

Amphispiza belli

Oreoscoptes montanus

Asio flammeus

Clethrionomys gapperi

Actitis macularia

Buteo swainsoni

Picoides tridactylus

Bartramia longicauda

Chaetura vauxi

Appendix E-300
Veery

Vesper sparrow

Western bluebird

Western meadowlark

Western red-backed vole

Western screech owl

Western snowy plover

Western tan age r

White-breasted nuthatch

White-headed woodpecker

WTiite-winged crossbill

Wild turkey

Willet

Williamsons sapsucker

Willow flycatcher

Wilsons warbler

Winter wren

Wood duck

Woodpecker

Yellow-billed cuckoo

Yellow-breasted chat

Yellow warbler

Mammals:

American marten

Black bear

California bighorn sheep

Chipmunk

Elk

Fisher

Fringed myotis

Gray wolf

Grizzly bear

Hoary bat

Long-eared myotis

Long-legged myotis

Lynx

Moose

Mountain lion

Mule deer

Catharus fuscescens

Pooecetes gramineus

Sialia mexicana

Stumella neglecta

Clethrionomys californicus

Otus kennicottii

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus

Piranga ludoviciana

Sitta carolinensis

Picoides albolarvatus

Loxia leucoptera

Meleagris gallopavo

Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

Sphyrapicus thyroideus

Empidonax traillii

Wilsonia pusilla

Troglodytes troglodytes

Aix sponsa

Picoides spp.

Coccyzus americanns

Icteria virens

Dendroica petechia

Martes americana

Ursus americanus

Ovis canadensis californiana

Tamias spp.

Cervus elaphus

Martes pennanti

Myotis thysanodes

Canis lupus

Ursus arctos

Lasiurus cinereus

Myotis evotis

Myotis volans

Lynx lynx

Alces alces

Felis concolor

Odocoileus hemionus

Appendix E-301
Northern flying squirrel

Pale western big-eared bat

Pronghorn antelope

Pygmy rabbit

Rocky Mountain elk

Rocky Mountain gray wolf

Silver-haired bat

Spotted bat

Squirrel

Washington ground squirrel

Western small-footed myotis

White tail deer

White-tailed jack rabbit

Wolverine

Woodland caribou

Amphibians and Reptiles:

Coeur d'Alene salamander

Common garter snake

Desert horned lizard

Longnose leopard lizard

Mojave black-collared lizard

Night snake

Northern leopard frog

Painted turtle

Rubber boa

Sagebrush lizard

Sharptail snake

Short-horned lizard

Spotted frog species A

Spotted frog species B

Striped whipsnake

Tailed frog

Western pond turtle

Western toad

Woodhouse's toad

Glaucomys sabrinus

Plecotus toumsendii pallescens

Antilocapra americana

Brachylagus idahoensis

Cervus elaphus nehonii

Canis lupis irremotus

Lasionycteris noctivagans

Euderma maculatum

Ammospermophilus spp.

Spermophilus washingtoni

Myotis ciliolabrum

Odocoileus virginianus

Lepus toumsendii

Gulo gulo

Rangifer tarandus caribou

Plethodon idahoensis

Thamnophis sirtalis

Phrynosoma platyrhinos

Gambelia wislizenii

Crotaphytus bicinctores

Hypsiglena torquata

Ranapipiens

Chrysemys picta

Charina bottae

Sceloporus graciosus graciosus

Contia tenuis

Phrynosoma douglassii

Rana pretiosa sp. A

Rana pretiosa sp. B

Masticophis taeniatus

Ascaphus truei

Clemmys marmorata

Bufo boreas

Bufo woodhousii

1

 Source for flora is Hitchock, C.L and Cronguist, A. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest, an illustrate manual.

University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Source for fish, birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles is

Species-Environment Relations (SER) databases.

Appendix E-302
Metric Conversion

Mile (mi)=1.61 Kilometers (km)

Kilometer (km)=.62 Miles (mi)

Square Kilometers (km2) =.39 Sq. Miles (mi2)

Centimeter (cm)= .3937 Inches (in)

Meter (m)=3.28 Feet (ft)

Hectare (ha)= 10,000 Square Meters (m2)

Hectare (ha)=2.47 Acres (ac)

Acre (ac)=43,560 Square Feet (ft2)

List of Acronyms

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BTUs British Thermal Units

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERU Ecological Reporting Units

ESA Endangered Species Act

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

FEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management

Assessment Team

FIRE BEA Finance, Insurance and

Real Estate

FS Forest Service

GIS Geographic Information System

GPM General Planning Model

GSP Gross State Product

HUCs Hydrologic Unit Code

ICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project

ICRB Interior Columbia River Basin

INFISH Interior Anadromous Fish Strategy

NEPA National Environmental

Protection Act

NWFP Northwest Forest Plan

PACFISH Pacific Anadromous Fish Strategy

PVGs Potential Vegetation Groups

RVDs Recreation Visitor Days

SER Species-Environment Relations

SIC Standard Industrial Code

SIT Science Integration Team

303
Notes
Notes
Notes
Quigley, Thomas M.; Haynes, Richard W; Graham, Russell T., tech. eds. 1996. Integrated scientific

assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath

and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 303 p.

The Integrated Scientific Assessment for Fxosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin

links landscape, aquatic, terrestrial, social, and economic characterizations to describe biophysical

and social systems. Integration was achieved through a framework built around six goals for

ecosystem management and three different views of the future. These goals are: maintain

evolutionary and ecological processes; manage for multiple ecological domains and evolutionary

imeframes; maintain viable populations of native and desired non-native species; encourage

social and economic resiliency; manage for places with definable values; and, manage to maintain a variety of ecosystem goods, services, and conditions that society wants. Ratings of relative

ecological integrity and sociocconomic resiliency were used to make broad statements about

ecosystem conditions in the Basin. Currently in the Basin high integrity and resiliency arc found

on 16 and 20 percent of the area, respectively. Low integrity and resiliency are found on 60 and

68 percent of the area. Different approaches to management can alter the risks to the assets of

people living in the Basin and to the ecosystem itself. Continuation of current management

leads to increasing risks while management approaches focusing on reserves or restoration result

in trends that mostly stabilize or reduce risks. Even where ecological integrity is projected to

improve with the application of active management, population increases and the pressures of

expanding demands on resources may cause increasing trends in risk.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of

race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of

Communications at (202) 720-2791.

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC

20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202) 720-

1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

PO. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890