United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

United States

Department of the

Interior

Bureau of Land

Management

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-404

May 1997
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

This is not a NEPA decision document

United States United States

Department of Department

Agriculture of the Interior

Forest Service Bureau of Land

Management

The Authors

Thomas M. Quigley is a range scientist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, and

Science Advisory Group Leader, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande,

OR 97850. Heidi Bigler Cole is a public affairs specialist, Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 112 E. Poplar,

Walla Walla, WA 99362.
Highlighted Scientific Findings of the

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project

Thomas M. Quigley and Heidi Bigler Cole

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

May 1997

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-404

iii

Abstract

Quigley, Thomas M.; Bigler Cole, Heidi, 1997. Highlighted scientific findings of the

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-404. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 34 p.

Decisions regarding 72 million acres of Forest Service- and Bureau of Land Management- administered lands will be based on scientific findings brought forth in the Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Some highlights of the scientific findings are presented here. Project scientists drew three general conclusions: (1) Conditions

and trends differ widely across the landscape; as a result, one-size-fits-all strategies will

neither effectively restore nor maintain ecosystems. (2) Ecosystem elements are linked to

one another; effective ecosystem management requires an understanding of these linkages.

(3) The scientific assessment highlighted a wide variety of risks important to ecological

and socioeconomic systems. It also brought forth numerous opportunities to restore ecological systems and provide goods and services. To realize the opportunities, managers

must recognize and manage the risks. Three management options were analyzed: current

direction, active restoration, and reserve system establishment. Analysis revealed that

active restoration was effective in addressing basinwide risks and opportunities.

Keywords: Ecosystem management, ecosystem assessment, ecological integrity, socioeconomic resiliency, risk management. Photo by John Hutmacher
iv

Preface

This project was launched to accomplish two things:

◆ Restore and maintain long-term ecosystem health and integrity.

◆ Support, within the capacity of the land, the economic and social needs of people, cultures, and communities and provide sustainable levels of products and services from

Forest Service- and Bureau of Land Management-administered land.

Problems cannot be resolved until they are understood. That was the science team’s

charge. The team set out to answer questions such as:

◆ Where are the problems?

◆ What caused them?

◆ Can they be fixed?

◆ What might be an effective strategy?

This document is designed to give you a quick look at the science findings. The findings

show the intensity and magnitude of problems and will help managers develop more

effective strategies. It is hoped that a clearer understanding of the problems will help you

evaluate potential strategies.

This document features only a glimpse of the science findings. More information may be

found in the following documents:

Overview and Executive Summary: Status of the Interior

Columbia Basin: Summary of Scientific Findings.

PNW-GTR-385

This 144-page document summarizes the science

assessment’s approach and findings.

A Framework for Ecosystem Management in the Interior

Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great

Basins. Richard W. Haynes, Russell T. Graham, and

Thomas M. Quigley, tech. eds. 1996. PNW-GTR-374

Principles and processes appropriate for ecosystem management at multiple levels are described in this document. It will be especially useful for people initiating

ecosystem management across multiple jurisdictions.

An 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, tech. eds. 1996.

PNW-GTR-382

This 304-page publication documents the integration

process and highlights key scientific findings.
v

An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior

Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great

Basins. Thomas M. Quigley, S.J. Arbelbide, tech. eds.

PNW-GTR-405

Detailed social, economic, terrestrial, aquatic,

and landscape ecology reports are published in this

document.

Evaluation of EIS Alternatives by the Science Integration

Team. Thomas M. Quigley, Kristine M. Lee, S.J.

Arbelbide, tech. eds. PNW-GTR-406

This document complements the draft environmental

impact statements (DEIS). Outcomes and consequences

associated with implementing the DEIS alternatives are

projected.

These documents may be ordered by contacting:

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Publications

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

(503) 808-2125

In addition to these documents, other scientific publications are in press, submitted to

journals, or in preparation on all science topics addressed by the Science Integration Team. Photo by John Hutmacher
vi

Acknowledgments

Over 300 scientists and specialists worked on this science effort. At the same time, dozens of

private citizens listened, learned, and asked compelling questions. Their varied backgrounds

and insights are reflected in the detailed science documents, which are highlighted here.

This is a pioneering project in many ways. It required new technology, new levels of

thinking, and persistence. The people who contributed to this project understand that

solving broad scale problems requires broad scale thinking. We acknowledge these people

and their contribution.

Science Integration Team Members

Science Integration Team Leaders Thomas M. Quigley, Sylvia J. Arbelbide,

Russell T. Graham

Document Production Jodi Clifford, Karen Esterholdt, John Ivie, Traci

Mc. Merritt, Cindy Miner, Liz Galli-Noble, Lynn

Starr, Kelly Wenzlick, Kathy Campbell

Aquatics James R. Sedell, Lynn M. Decker, Danny C. Lee,

Kristine M. Lee, Bruce E. Reiman, Russell F.

Thurow, Jack E. Williams

Economics Richard W. Haynes, Amy L. Horne, Nicholas E.

Reyna

Landscape Ecology Wendel J. Hann, Carl L. Almquist, Mike Borman,

Kenneth C. Brewer, Gary Ford, Thomas P. Frost,

Iris Goodman, Paul F. Hessburg, Mark E. Jensen,

J. L. Jones, M.G. “Sherm” Karl, Robert E. Keane,

Bradley G. Smith

Social Science James A. Burchfield, Steven F. McCool, Stewart D.

Allen, John S. Bumstead, Steven J. Galliano,

Richard C. Hanes, Dave Powell

Terrestrial Ecology Bruce G. Marcot, Richard S. Holthausen, John F.

Lehmkuhl, Kurt Nelson, Martin G. Raphael,

Elaine J. Zieroth

Spatial Analysis Rebecca A. Gravenmier, John R. Steffenson,

Andrew E. Wilson
vii

CONTENTS

The Challenge 1

The Charge 2

The Science 4

The Findings 12

Ecosystem Management Strategies 12

Specific Findings 13

The Management Strategy 27

Option 1: What if we continued current management? 28

Option 2: What if we emphasized active restoration? 30

Option 3: What if we set aside a system of reserves and

allowed nature to heal itself? 32

The Next Steps 34

Filling Science Gaps 34

Technology Transfer 34
viii

List of Figures

Hydrologic Hierarchy 4

Socioeconomic Resiliency 6

Composite Integrity 8

Basin-wide and FS/BLM Integrity Levels 9

Historic and Current Fire Severity 13

Current and Historic Landscape Elements 14

Aquatic Strongholds and Areas of Predicted Road Densities 19

Proportion of Historic Habitats Remaining 20

Broad Scale Terrestrial Species Habitat Status in the Basin 21

Employment in Economic Sectors of the United States and the Basin 22

List of Maps

Administrative Units 2

Topography 3

Project Area 3

Socioeconomic Resiliency Ratings 7

Composite Ecological Integrity 8

Forest Integrity 10

Aquatic Integrity 10

Hydrologic Integrity 10

Range Hydrologic Integrity Ratings 11

Rangeland Integrity 11

Historic Fire Regimes for Forested Potential Vegetation Groups 13

Current Fire Regimes for Forested Potential Vegetation Groups 13

Susceptibility to Cheatgrass Invasion 15
ix

Susceptibility to Spotted Knapweed Invasion 15

Historic Key Salmonid Presence 16

Current Key Salmonid Presence 16

Dams 17

Rainbow Trout Distribution 18

Aquatic Strongholds and Areas of Predicted Road Density 19

Reliance on BLM/FS Timber 23

Reliance on BLM/FS Forage 23

Recreation Counties 24

Counties Expecting High Population Growth 24

Tribal Ceded Lands 25

Long-Term Trends in Ecological Integrity: Management Option 1 28

Long-Term Trends in Risk of Human/Ecological Interaction:

Management Option 1 29

Long-Term Trends in Ecological Integrity: Management Option 2 30

Long-Term Trends in Risk of Human-Ecological Interaction:

Management Option 2 31

Long-Term Trends in Ecological Integrity: Management Option 3 32

Long-Term Trends in Risk of Human-Ecological Interaction:

Management Option 3 33
Photo by John Hutmacher

Photo by John Hutmacher

Photo by John Hutmacher
1

THE CHALLENGE

Today’s Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) managers have

challenges that their predecessors could not

imagine:

◆ Wildfires of unprecedented intensity and size

are sweeping through the country on a regular

basis.

◆ Damaging noxious weeds are changing the

rangelands, leaving less habitat for wildlife and

forage for livestock.

◆ Rural communities can no longer depend on

a predictable flow of natural resources from

public lands.

◆ Natural resource issues are being debated

nationally.

◆ American’s expectations for natural resources

have changed.

◆ Salmon populations are declining, and some

species are nearing extinction.

Land managers know the problems are too big to

tackle unit by unit, however, they believe a coordinated strategy developed by local administrative

units can have an impact.
2

THE CHARGE

A 1993 presidential directive launched the

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Man-

 agement Project. Several Federal agencies

teamed up to develop a scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy for 72 million acres of land

administered by the BLM and Forest Service.

Science findings will help land managers chart the future course for these Forest Service- and

BLM-administered lands.

The project sought to answer two questions: (1)

What are the ecological and socioeconomic trends

and conditions in the basin? and (2) What land

management strategy would most effectively improve

them? A team of scientists tackled the first question,

and a management team tackled the second.

ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS

LEGEND

U.S.D.A. Forests

Columbia River

Gorge National

Scenic Area

B.L.M. Administered

Lands

State Boundaries

Columbia River

Assessment

Boundary
3

The 145-million-acre project area, also called

the basin, encompasses parts of seven states. The

management strategy will affect 72 million acres

managed by the Forest Service and BLM.

Land managers are using the science information to

develop management strategies and provide context

for Forest Service and BLM management plans.

The strategies are outlined and analyzed in two draft

environmental impact statements (EIS), released to

the public in spring 1997. These documents will be

used to eventually amend 74 Forest Service and

BLM land-use plans, enabling the local units to

implement a comprehensive, collaborative strategy

that will address broad scale issues.

Scientists are providing credible information to

managers on current conditions, risks, and opportunities as well as the consequences associated

with several management options. Managers will

use the science information to make decisions.

Scientists will not make the decisions.

TOPOGRAPHY

LEGEND

0-500 feet

2000-2500 feet

4500-5000 feet

7000-7500 feet

9500-10000 feet

Columbia River

Basin Assessment

Boundary

State Boundaries

ICBEMP area

PROJECT AREA
4

THE SCIENCE

A Science Integration Team was formed to

tackle the question, What are the socioeconomic and ecological trends and conditions

in the basin? The team included hundreds of

scientists and technical specialists from Federal

agencies and the larger science community. Their

task was momentous: find a way to gauge the ecological and socioeconomic health for 145 million

acres, an area the size of France. A comprehensive

scientific assessment of this size had never before

been done in the United States. At the time it was

conducted, it was the largest assessment of its kind

in the world.

Some data needed to conduct the assessment had

already been gathered; however, it was scattered

and inconsistent. After existing and new data

were brought together, over 170 layers of information were analyzed by using Geographic Information Systems (GIS).

Data were organized and analyzed in a watershed

hierarchy, which allowed scientists to make consistent assessments at different scales. Analysis was

conducted at the basin level (about 145 million

acres), subbasin level (about 850,000 acres),

watershed level (about 60,000 acres), and subwatershed level (about 20,000 acres).

HYDROLOGIC HIERARCHY

200 Miles

10 Miles

2 Miles

Subbasin (4th Field Hydrologic Units)

Upper Grande

Ronde River

Subwatershed

(6th Field Hydrologic Units)

McIntyre Creek

LEGEND

State Boundaries

Project Area

Outer HUC Boundary

4th Field Hydrologic Units

6th Field Hydrologic Units

100k Stream Layer
5

This project examined relations at the broad

scale as opposed to detailed examination of individual sites or specific locations. This is similar

to flying at high altitude and characterizing

conditions from that perspective.

Photo by Tom Iraci
6

We believe that high integrity

can be maintained or achieved

in concert with human activities,

if management is based on

ecological relations.

Most economic activity takes place in the population centers; therefore, most people live in highly

resilient areas . Much of the basin consists of sparsely populated, rural communities. Some of these

communities have few opportunities to diversify their economies. As a result, they have relatively lower

socioeconomic resiliency.

Developing a meaningful interpretation of

the science information required scientists to

develop integrated measures. These measures

are especially useful to managers, because they

allow conditions, risks, and opportunities to

be characterized across the landscape. The

integrated measures include socioeconomic

resiliency and ecological integrity.

Socioeconomic resiliency estimates the social and

economic sensitivity of a geographical area to outside

economic influences. For example, a county with

high socioeconomic resiliency is better equipped to

handle new, nontraditional businesses or to cope

when a major business experiences reversals.

SOCIOECONOMIC RESILIENCY

BY POPULATION

SOCIOECONOMIC RESILIENCY

BY AREA

Low

18%

High

67%

Moderate

15%

High

23%

Moderate

14%

Low

63%
7

Counties with the highest

resiliency ratings generally have

large population centers or are

located in areas with growing

recreation demands.

SOCIOECONOMIC RESILIENCY RATINGS

Photo by John Hutmacher

LEGEND

Low

Medium

High

County Boundaries

State Boundaries

Columbia River

Assessment

Boundary
8

COMPOSITE ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY

Ecological integrity describes the wholeness and

resiliency of an ecological system. A system with

high integrity functions properly because it has

all its parts and processes intact. Such a system

rebounds faster after wildfires, floods, road

building, and other disturbances. The ratings

of high, moderate, and low are relative ratings

within the basin. No absolute measures exist.

COMPOSITE ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY

LEGEND

Low

Moderate

High

Subbasin Boundaries

State Boundaries

Columbia River

Assessment

Boundary

High

16%

Moderate

24% Low

60%
9

Management of Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands is important from the perspective of

ecological integrity. Only 16 percent of the entire basin is rated as having high ecological integrity, and

84 percent of that high-rated area is managed by the Forest Service and BLM.

Compared to many ecosystems in the world,

BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands in

the basin have much of their ecological integrity

intact. Ecological integrity was rated as high,

moderate, or low on a relative scale. In general,

the more a system has been altered, the lower its

integrity. A low-integrity area may not be highly

degraded; its integrity is low compared to other

lands in the project area. Low integrity should

not necessarily be seen as “bad.” Many lowintegrity areas are filling societal needs; examples

include agricultural lands and roads related to recreation access.

BASINWIDE ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY PROPORTIONS ADMINISTERED BY FS/BLM

L

60%

H-16%

24%

Moderate

Proportion administered by FS/BLM

High Low Moderate

16%

High

60%

Low

84% 63% 39%

H-16%

M

24%

M

24%

L

60%
10

AQUATIC INTEGRITY

FOREST INTEGRITY

FOREST HYDROLOGIC INTEGRITY

Photo by Tom Iraci Photo by John Hutmacher Photo by John Hutmacher
11

RANGELAND INTEGRITY

Composite integrity ratings considered the underlying components of

forest, rangeland, aquatic, and hydrologic integrity. Integrity ratings

provide valuable information to managers concerning conditions,

risks, and opportunities on the landscape. The information will be

used to help set management priorities.

Forest high integrity: A mosaic of plant and animal communities; well-connected, high-quality habitat; diverse assemblages of

native and desired nonnative species.

Aquatic high integrity: Possessing a full complement of native fishes and other aquatic species that are

well distributed in high-quality, well-connected habitats.

Hydrologic high integrity: A network of streams where upland, flood-plain, and riparian areas have

resilient vegetation; these networks support diverse and productive aquatic and terrestrial environments.

Rangeland high integrity: A mosaic of plant and animal communities; well-connected, high-quality

habitat; diverse assemblages of native and desired nonnative species.

RANGELAND HYDROLOGIC INTEGRITY

LEGEND (maps pages 10-11)

High (aquatic class 1)

Moderate (aquatic class 2)

Low (aquatic class 3)

Subbasin Boundaries

State Boundaries

Columbia River Assessment Boundary

Photo by John Hutmacher
12

Analyzing the data and GIS layers enabled

scientists and managers to see the larger

 stories being played out across the landscape.

They could assess the risks and opportunities associated with alternative management strategies. Ecological integrity and socioeconomic resiliency are but

two measures that helped explain these larger stories.

The information is valuable for future monitoring,

research, and planning.

All science findings and the analyses behind them

were reviewed by an anonymous, independently

selected group of scientists, who double-checked

the science findings and the underlying analyses.

Conclusions drawn from the scientific assessment

both revealed surprises and confirmed hypotheses.

Ecosystem

Management Strategies

Successful management strategies should share

three common themes:

1. Multiple risks to ecological integrity and

economic well being must be recognized

and managed.

Risks range from naturally occurring wildfires and

floods to human-caused events, including erosion

from road building and disturbance from logging

and domestic grazing. These different risks exist

under any management strategy and they interact,

one affecting the magnitude of the other. For

example, targeted timber harvest and prescribed

burns can reduce the risk of wildfire, but they

pose their own direct risks to ecological integrity.

Any strategy focusing on the management of only

one risk while ignoring the others is certain to

generate significant detrimental ecological and

economic effects.

Ecosystem management must consider the

specific actions being proposed and the ecological

consequences and outcomes associated with inaction. Both action and inaction result in changed

environments.

2. Risks and opportunities differ significantly

across the project area. Management plans

must recognize this variation.

The area’s varied landscape has a multitude

of conditions and capabilities. Any landscape

strategy dictating a-one-size-fits-all prescription

will not take advantage of this reality. A strategy

that recognizes and takes advantage of the variability

across the landscape will be more successful.

3. Individual sites are linked to landscapes and

landscapes are linked to ecological processes

and human activities. These links must be

understood and considered.

Neither a landscape approach nor a site-specific

approach alone can be successful. Ecosystem

management must consider simultaneously the

site, the landscape, and their interactions. In this

multiple scale approach, cumulative effects will be

managed by identifying and managing risks and

opportunities at each scale.

THE FINDINGS
13

Fire severity and frequency have changed across the landscape. Before Euro-American settlement, most fires in

low and mid elevation forests were nonlethal. Forests

and rangelands benefited from these frequent, surface

fires, which thinned vegetation and favored growth of

fire-tolerant trees. Lethal, or stand-replacing fires, played

a lesser role on the landscape.

Lethal or stand-replacing fires currently predominate.

Lethal fire regimes now exceed nonlethal fire regimes in

forested areas. Fire exclusion, livestock grazing, timber

harvest, and exotic plant introduction have contributed

to these changes.

HISTORIC FIRE REGIMES FOR FORESTED

POTENTIAL VEGETATION GROUPS

CURRENT FIRE REGIMES FOR FORESTED

POTENTIAL VEGETATION GROUPS

LEGEND

Nonlethal

Mixed

Lethal

Ecological Reporting

Unit Boundaries

State Boundaries

EIS Boundaries

Specific Findings

Landscape Ecology—Fire

Photo by Tom Iraci

In recent times, the acreage with lethal fire regimes

has more than doubled. This poses a significant

threat to ecological integrity, water quality, species

recovery, and homes in rural areas.

Nonlethal

Percent of FS/BLM Forested Lands

Lethal

0

5

10

15

20

25

35

30

40

45

50

HistoricCurrentHistoricCurrent

HISTORIC AND CURRENT FIRE

SEVERITY ON FS/BLM-ADMINISTERED

FORESTED LANDS
14

Landscape Ecology—Forests and Rangelands

Several range and forest characteristics have

changed dramatically. Highlights:

◆ Drought, fire suppression, overgrazing, and

logging have contributed to the changes.

◆ Native grasslands and shrublands have

declined.

◆ Noxious (exotic) weed spread is expected to

accelerate dramatically.

◆ Tree species mix and age classes have changed.

Historically, there were more old and mixed

age class stands. Now, uniform stands of

middle-aged trees predominate.

◆ Much of the timber volume consists of smalldiameter trees.

CURRENT AND HISTORIC LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS

yyyyyy







y

y

y

y









y

y

y

y









y

y

y

y









y

y

y

y

yyyyyy







y

y

y

y









y

y

y

y

yyyyyyyy







y

y

y

y









y

y

y

y





y

0

y

Comparison Index

0.2

0.4

0.6

Historic (1800s)

Native Grasslands

Shrublands

Potential Exotics

Roads

Soil Disturbance

Late Seral Multi

Late Seral Single

Residual Large Trees

Mid Seral Forest

Early Seral Forest

Ins/Dis/Fire Suscept

Avail Sm Diam Vol





y

yCurrent (1970 to 1995)

0.8

1

1.2
15

Scientists understood that noxious weeds were a problem

in the basin; however, they were surprised that the weeds

had invaded so quickly and extensively. Noxious weeds

crowd out native grass species, which decreases wildlife

habitat and reduces forage for grazing. Cheatgrass and

spotted knapweed are but two of the noxious weed species

aggressively invading the basin.

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO CHEATGRASS INVASION

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO SPOTTED

KNAPWEED INVASION

LEGEND

None

Low

Moderate

High

State Boundaries

Columbia River Basin

Assessment

Boundary

Photo by John Hutmacher
16

The seven salmonids

(spawning trout and

salmon) chosen for

detailed study were

bull trout, westslope

cutthroat trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout,

redband trout, steelhead, and both oceanand stream-type

chinook salmon. Prior to Euro-American settlement,

their distribution was widespread within the basin.

These native species are considered key species for

aquatic systems within the basin.

Aquatics

The basin has experienced widespread and dramatic change in the composition,

structure, and distribution of fish communities. Salmonids occupy a fraction of

their historic range. Strong populations inhabit an even smaller area. Depending

on the species, strong salmonid populations inhabit between 0.1 and 33 percent of

their historical habitat.

HISTORIC KEY SALMONID PRESENCE

CURRENT KEY SALMONID PRESENCE

LEGEND

1 species

2 species

3-6 species

State Boundaries

Columbia River Basin

Assessment

Boundary

Photo by John Hutmacher
17

Habitat, and populations in turn, have declined

as a result of dams, agriculture and rangeland

conversions, timber harvest, road building, and

competition with introduced fish species.

Salmonid habitat protection and restoration

alone will not ensure future healthy populations.

The effects of dams, hatcheries, fish harvest, and

introduced fish species also must be addressed.

DAMS

LEGEND

Areas with 1 Dam

Areas with 2 Dams

Areas with 3-14 Dams

State Boundaries

Columbia River Basin

Assessment Boundary
18

Much of the native ecosystem has been altered, but

core areas remain for rebuilding and maintaining

functioning native aquatic systems.

RAINBOW TROUT DISTRIBUTION

Nonnative fish species are important

for recreation and other purposes, yet

their presence complicates restoration

and maintenance of native fish species. Not only do nonnative fish compete for high-quality habitat, some

interbreed with native fish, adversely

affecting native genetic stock.

Photo by John Hutmacher

LEGEND

Distribution of

Introduced Rainbow

Trout

State Boundaries

Columbia River

Basin Assessment

Boundary
19

About 58

percent of

subwatersheds

with the strong

salmonid

communities

have no roads

or very low

road densities

(less than 0.1

mile of road per square mile). The remaining

strong populations are generally located in areas

with low-density road systems (0.1-0.7 mile of

road per square mile). Half of the Forest Serviceand BLM-administered areas with low road

density have strong populations of salmonids.

AQUATIC STRONGHOLDS AND AREAS OF

PREDICTED ROAD DENSITY

AQUATIC STRONGHOLDS AND ACREAGE

OF PREDICTED ROAD DENSITY ON

FS/BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS

Photo by John Hutmacher

LEGEND

None/Very Low

Predicted Road

Density With

Strongholds

Low-Very High

Predicted Road

Density With

Strongholds

None/Very Low

Predicted Road

Density Without

Strongholds

State Boundaries

Columbia River

Basin Assessment

Boundary

Other Road 

Densities

without

Strongholds

50%

Low/Very High

Predicted Road

Density with 

Strongholds

10%

None/Very Low

Predicted Road

Density without 

Strongholds

24%

None/Very Low

Predicted Road

Density with 

Strongholds

16%
20

Terrestrial Species

Species associated with old forests, native grasslands, and native shrublands have lost much of

their original habitat. Conserving and restoring

these habitats will be important for the well being

of these species.

Using only a species-specific approach to manage

at-risk species is not likely to be successful. A

broader, ecosystem approach is necessary. Similarly, a broad scale strategy alone is not likely to

conserve all species and their ecological functions.

Broad scale analysis will be most effective when

combined with mid and fine scale analyses.

The science team presented criteria by which

long-term evolutionary potential of species can be

provided, an analysis of prehistoric changes in species communities, and an evaluation of potential

effects of regional climate change on species and

communities.

PROPORTION OF HISTORIC

HABITATS REMAINING

Native grasslands have experienced dramatic

declines in terrestrial habitats. The most significant

change for native grasslands has been their conversion to agriculture, a societal choice.

Photo by Tom Iraci

Native Grassland Native Shrubland Old Forest Structure

54%

65%

30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%
21

BROADSCALE TERRESTRIAL SPECIES HABITAT STATUS IN THE BASIN

The status of over 8,000 vascular plants and 548 terrestrial vertebrates that occur within the basin was reviewed. Over 150 plant species were of rangewide concern, but only

37 species occur broadly enough to allow analysis at a broad scale. For the vertebrates,

336 were determined not to be of concern due to their abundance and distribution, 39

are distributed so narrowly that analysis at the basin scale was not appropriate, and 173

were analyzed in detail. Of these 37 plants and 173 animals, 39 were scarcely distributed and thus of concern even under historical conditions. Ninety were of concern currently. Of these species of concern, 11 were at significant risk of elimination from broad

parts of the basin even under historical conditions. Fifty-nine species are currently considered to be at significant risk of elimination from some or most of the basin.

0

1

2

3

4

5

yy

27

1

0

yyyy



5 5

1

Total Historic

Number of species

Current Listed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

 yyyy

362

16

3

51

31

1

Total Historic

Number of species

Current Listed

8,350

14

6

16

7

3

Total Historic

Number of species

Current Listed 0

5

10

15

20

 yyyy yyyy

0

1

2

3

4

 yyyy

0

27

3

0

4

2

Total Historic

Number of species

Current Listed

0

3

6

9

12

15

yyyyyy

132

5

2

14 14

3

Total Historic

Number of species

Current Listed

Amphibians Plants

Birds Reptiles

Number of species that occur within the basin

y

Species with broad scale habitat of concern

Species with broad scale habitat at risk of

elimination

Species of broad scale concern that 

are listed as threatened, endangered, or 

candidate under the Endangered Species Act 

Key

Mammals
22

0

5

Agriculture services

Mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Transportation

Trade

Financial, insurance & real estate

Timber and wood products

Services

Government

Farm employment

10

15

20

25

30

National Average Basin Average

Socioeconomics

The project area’s regional economy is healthy,

diverse, and adaptable. Natural resource production plays a relatively small role in today’s

regional economy: just 4 percent of the total

area’s employment depends directly on timber,

grazing, and mining. This is not true for many

of the region’s highly rural counties, many

of which are highly reliant on Federal lands.

Additionally, some counties depend on Federal

revenue sharing to support infrastructure and

social services. Some of these counties and

communities within the basin do not have

strong, robust economies.

Employment within the

basin is above the

national average for

agricultural services,

timber and wood

products, government,

and farm employment.

Those economic sectors

where basin employment

is considerably less than

the national average

include manufacturing,

FIRE (finance, insurance, and real-estate),

and services.

EMPLOYMENT IN ECONOMIC SECTORS IN THE

UNITED STATES AND THE BASIN

Photo by John Hutmacher
23

Some of the basin’s counties are more reliant on Federal

grazing and timber than others.

RELIANCE ON BLM/FS TIMBER HARVEST

RELIANCE ON BLM/FS FORAGE

LEGEND

High

Medium

Low

County Boundaries

State Boundaries

Columbia River

Basin Assessment

Boundary

Photo by John Hutmacher
24

Population increases are projected for counties that have more recreational opportunities or are associated with metropolitan areas projected to increase in

population.

Recreation is becoming increasingly important in the basin. About 40 percent of

these Federal lands provide primitive or semiprimitive recreational opportunities.

COUNTIES EXPECTING HIGH POPULATION GROWTH

RECREATION COUNTIES

LEGEND

Metropolitan

Counties

Recreation

Counties

Other Counties

County Boundaries

State Boundaries

Columbia River

Basin Assessment

Boundary

LEGEND

Recreation Counties

County Boundaries

State Boundaries

Columbia River

Basin Assessment

Boundary

Photo by Tom Iraci

Photo by John Hutmacher
25

American Indian Peoples

The Federal government holds certain trust

responsibilities and obligations to tribes. These

are based on various legal agreements, including

treaties, which have implications for ecosystem

management.

There is a great deal of overlap between issues

expressed by American Indians and those voiced by

the general public regarding ecosystem management;

however, the legal status of American Indians, the

sovereignty of tribal governments, and the nature of

tribal rights merit separate attention.

There are 22 federally recognized tribes and a

number of off-reservation traditional Indian

communities that have interest in lands within

the project area.

TRIBAL CEDED LANDS

Tribes retain special hunting, fishing, and access rights on ceded lands.

When Federal agencies develop land management

plans, American Indians do not view themselves

as another “special interest” that needs to be

factored in (or traded) with other interests. This

has developed into increased tribal participation

at all agency planning levels. Strong interest exists

among the Indian communities for harvestable,

rather than the lower threshold of “viable,” populations of fish, wildlife, and plants. The scientific

findings include literally hundreds of plant and

animal species identified by American Indian

communities as being of significance for their

customs and culture.

LEGEND

National Forest System

Bureau of Land Management

Indian Reservation

Boundaries

Tribal Ceded Lands

Tribal Ceded Boundaries

State Boundaries

Columbia River

Basin Assessment Boundary
26

Photo by John Hutmacher

Photo by John Hutmacher
27

Another unique aspect of this project is

the science-management partnership.

 Managers are already using selected

information gathered during the scientific

assessment. The information forms the basis

for the Environmental Impact Statements

(EISs). These documents will shape

the future management of 72 million acres of

Forest Service- and BLM-administered lands.

Management strategies are being developed

in two EISs.

Scientists do not make management decisions.

They provide information that helps land managers identify risks and opportunities and determine

the consequences of implementing alternative

management strategies.

For this scientific assessment, three management

options were explored. Scientists projected the

outcomes of each option by using historic and

current trends and conditions. They also examined interactions among ecosystem components.

These options provided useful background information as management alternatives were being

developed for the EISs.

It’s a question of balance:

what the land will allow, what

people want, and what society

can afford.

THE

MANAGEMENT

STRATEGY
28

Under this option:

◆ Strategies outlined in current land management plans continue.

◆ It is assumed that funding remains at recent

levels.

◆ No interim direction (such as new riparian

management directives) applies.

◆ Timber and livestock production are emphasized.

Option 1: What if we continued current management?

◆ Resources such as wildlife, fisheries, water, and

scenery are managed and protected.

◆ In many areas, management emphasis is

focused on wilderness, fisheries, or cultural

resources.

◆ Management strategies are unit specific; there

is little emphasis on coordinating management

strategies across Forest Service and BLM jurisdictional boundaries.

LONG-TERM TRENDS IN ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY: MANAGEMENT OPTION 1

Ecological integrity is projected to mostly decline under this management option.

LEGEND

-3 Strongly Decreasing

-2 Moderately Decreasing

-1 Slightly Decreasing

0 Stable

1 Slightly Increasing

Non-FS/BLM

Administered Lands

State Boundaries

Columbia River

Basin Assessment

Boundary
29

LONG-TERM TRENDS IN RISK OF HUMAN-ECOLOGICAL INTERACTION:

MANAGEMENT OPTION 1

Effects include:

◆ Wildfire and smoke occurrence increases.

◆ Vegetation most susceptible to

insects and disease increases.

◆ Expansion of exotic plants continues.

Under this option, humans run a higher risk of adversely affecting the environment through activities

such as road building, grazing, and logging. Likewise, the environment has a high likelihood of

adversely affecting human assets through catastrophic wildfires and a long-term inability to provide

human-desired goods and services.

◆ Terrestrial habitat continues to decline.

◆ Aquatic and riparian ecosystem function not

maintained.

◆ Social and economic systems become less predictable.

LEGEND

No Change

Increasing Risk

State Boundaries

Columbia River

Basin Assessment

Boundary
30

Under this option:

◆ Reduction of risk to ecological integrity and

species viability is emphasized.

◆ Management practices aggressively restore ecosystem health through strategies resembling

natural disturbance processes, such as insects,

disease, and fire.

Option 2: What if we emphasized active restoration?

LONG-TERM TRENDS IN ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY: MANAGEMENT OPTION 2

For the most part, ecological integrity improves following restoration activities.

◆ Healthy ecosystems are better able to meet

society’s social and economic needs.

◆ Restoration activities are economically

beneficial whenever possible.

◆ Restoration strategies account for variable

conditions across Forest Service and BLM

jurisdictional boundaries.

LEGEND

0 Stable

1 Slightly Increasing

2 Moderately Increasing

3 Strongly Increasing

Non-FS/BLM Administered Lands

State Boundaries

Columbia River

Basin Assessment Boundary
31

Active restoration activities decrease the severity and frequency of wildfires and other natural disturbances. Human-caused impacts are better aligned with ecological conditions. As a result, this option

offers relatively low levels of risk to human assets and the environment.

Effects include:

◆ Smoke from prescribed fire is increased; wildfire smoke is decreased.

◆ Smoke timing is changed and total quantity is

reduced.

◆ Vegetation composition and structure are more

consistent with inherent disturbance regimes.

◆ Vegetation susceptible to insects and disease is

reduced.

LONG-TERM TRENDS IN RISK OF HUMAN-ECOLOGICAL INTERACTION:

MANAGEMENT OPTION 2

◆ Exotic plant expansion is curbed, although not

stopped.

◆ Terrestrial species habitat experiences moderate

improvements.

◆ Negative economic impacts may be experienced in 16 timber-reliant counties.

◆ Riparian areas are maintained; riparian functions are protected.

◆ Managers have increased flexibility.

LEGEND

Decreasing Risk

No Change

Increasing Risk

State Boundaries

Columbia River

Basin Assessment

Boundary
32

Under this option:

◆ All types of vegetation are included in the

reserves, which are large enough to contain

forest fires and other natural disturbances.

◆ Reserves encompass Forest Service- and BLMadministered lands only.

◆ Human use levels within the reserves are

relatively low.

Option 3: What if we set aside a system of reserves and

allowed nature to heal itself?

LONG-TERM TRENDS IN ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY: MANAGEMENT OPTION 3

In general, ecological integrity trends improve under option 3.

◆ Management inside the reserves occurs only if

disturbance events (such as wildfires) are likely

to affect adjacent land or management efforts

are necessary to achieve long-term goals (such

as maintaining threatened or endangered

species habitat).

LEGEND

-1 Slightly Decreasing

0 Stable

1 Slightly Increasing

2 Moderately Increasing

3 Strongly Increasing

Non-FS/BLM Administered Lands

State Boundaries

Columbia River

Basin Assessment Boundary
33

On one hand, decreased human activity within the reserves will reduce the risk of ecological damage.

On the other hand, the lack of restoration activities within the reserves makes them susceptible to wildfire and other natural disturbances. As a result, the risk to both human assets and the environment

would increase in some areas.

Effects include:

◆ Large wildfire potential increases, even with

fire suppression efforts, which poses risk for

people in adjacent areas.

◆ Vegetation susceptible to insects and disease is

increased.

◆ Exotic plant species continue to expand.

LONG-TERM TRENDS IN RISK OF HUMAN-ECOLOGICAL INTERACTION:

MANAGEMENT OPTION 3

◆ Terrestrial species habitat experiences moderate

improvements.

◆ Negative economic impacts are experienced in

some timber-reliant counties and some grazing-reliant counties.

◆ Riparian areas and riparian functions are mostly maintained.

LEGEND

Decreasing Risk

No Change

Increasing Risk

State Boundaries

Columbia River

Basin Assessment

Boundary
34

Filling Science Gaps

The scientific assessment brought information together, giving us a better under

standing of the ecosystem and its conditions. It also highlighted significant gaps in our

understanding. As a result, future research and

development will be focused in areas such as:

◆ Determining how disturbance processes, such

as wildfires and floods, affect ecological integrity

◆ Developing conservation and restoration

strategies for rare aquatic and terrestrial species

◆ Evaluating short- and long-term relative risks

of active and passive management

◆ Developing basic studies on taxonomy, occurrence, distribution, and life history of most

organisms, especially plants and invertebrates

◆ Determining how providing goods and services

can be managed in concert with ecological

integrity

◆ Understanding how rangeland integrity can be

restored in concert with livestock production

THE NEXT STEPS

Technology Transfer

A lasting legacy of this project will be the information, databases, and GIS data. The data

are currently being shared with the public and

agencies. The information is also being made

available on the Internet and in workshops, public

meetings, and scientific publications.
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is

dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the

Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water,

forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research,

cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and

management of the National Forests and National Grasslands,

it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly

greater service to a growing Nation.

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 (voice), or (800) 855-

1234 (TDD).

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call

(800) 245-6340 (voice), or (800) 855-1234 (TDD). USDA is

an equal employment opportunity employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890 Portland,

Oregon 97208-3890

Quigley, Thomas M.; Bigler Cole, Heidi, 1997. Highlighted scientific findings of the Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-404. Portland, OR:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 34 p.

Decisions regarding 72 million acres of Forest Service- and Bureau of Land Management- administered lands will be based on scientific findings brought forth in the

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Some highlights of the

scientific findings are presented here. The scientific assessment highlighted a wide

variety of risks important to ecological and socioeconomic systems. It also brought

forth numerous opportunities to restore ecological systems and provide goods and

services. To realize the opportunities, managers must recognize and manage the

risks. Three management options were analyzed: current direction, active restoration, and reserve system establishment. Analysis revealed that active restoration was

effective in addressing basinwide risks and opportunities.

Keywords: Ecosystem management, ecosystem assessment, ecological integrity,

socioeconomic resiliency, risk management.