Evaluation of Landscape Disturbances

To evaluate the landscape's response to variation

in alternative management of disturbance, we

grouped disturbances that change vegetation into

general categories for forest or rangeland systems.

These groups consider management treatments as

well as unplanned disturbance events. Forest disturbance groups include: prescribed fire, thinning

and harvest, wildfire, crown wildfire, and forest

mortality susceptibility. Range disturbance groups

include: prescribed fire, range nonstructural and

structural improvements, plan revision/implementation, grazing, the invasion of exotic plants, and

wildfire. These lists do not include all disturbances and changes occurring on the landscape

over time, but rather the types of disturbance

events most directly influenced by the alternatives

presented in the preliminary draft EISs for the

Eastside (EEIS) and the Upper Columbia River

Basin (UCRB EIS).

Landscapes are dynamic, continually changing in

association with natural and human-influenced

biotic growth, death, and environmental fluctuations (White and Pickett 1985). Because of this

continual change, we were unable to predict the

long-term effects of all the disturbances likely to

occur across the landscape. Our objective in this

evaluation of landscape disturbances was to predict the outcomes that would be different as a

result of implementing the various management

strategies in the alternatives. The effects of disturbances were evaluated primarily by the area affected over the first decade (1 to 10 years) and long

term (50 to 100 years). Disturbance areas were

summarized by Ecological Reporting Unit (ERU),

potential vegetation group (PVG), management

area, and class.

Relation of Disturbance Levels and

Standards in Preliminary Draft

EISs to Evaluation of Alternatives

It is important to emphasize that the management-prescribed disturbance levels for harvest,

prescribed fire, grazing, range improvement, and

roads from the preliminary draft EISs do not necessarily represent the ecological or resource outcomes in the long term. These activity levels are

the levels estimated by the EIS teams based on the

alternative theme, desired future conditions, and

funding constraints for the first decade. Activity

levels that can actually be implemented are contingent upon actual cause-and-effect relationships.

Landscape conditions change spatially and temporally in response to relationships between components and natural and human-influenced disturbances. The standards of the preliminary draft

EISs often represent single state/size conditions

that do not represent the "best fit" to the biophysical system in concert with inherent disturbance

processes. In order to avoid conflicts of single

state/size standards with the alternative theme,

DFCs, and activity levels we assumed that such

standards would be changed to reflect an "ecological landscape fit" prior to implementation of substantial amounts of activities.

The CRBSUM model is designed to simulate

cause-and-effect relationships across space and

through time. The activity levels in the preliminary draft EISs include adjustments for causeand-effect relationships based upon two iterations

of desired levels, CRBSUM modeling of disturbances and outcomes, and analysis feedback.

Sufficient time was not available to resolve differences between the desired activity levels and

CRBSUM model projections to integrate the

effects of broad-, mid-, and fine-scale alternative

direction in the preliminary draft EISs. However,

these differences may not substantially effect the

relative differences between alternatives. There are

substantial conflicts between single state/size standards and biophysical capabilities and inherent

disturbance processes. However, as mentioned

previously, we assumed these standards would be

fitted ecologically, based on landscape patterns of

biophysical conditions and succession/disturbance

regimes, prior to substantial management-induced

change.

Landscape Ecology
For comparison of the 100-year average outcomes

of terrestrial communities, physiognomic types,

disturbance, and associated resource values (such as

grazing, scenic integrity, and timber volume), we

can generally assume that the relative relationships

between the desired activity levels in the preliminary draft EISs and the modeled activity levels are

similar. For mid- and fine-scale attributes, the statistical variability of the correlates with broad-scale

attributes that were used for projections is generally

higher than the variability associated with relatively

refined changes in activity levels. Consequently, we

are generally confident that the relative differences

between alternatives for all attributes reflect the

general differences between alternatives at all scales.

Forest Disturbances

Prescribed Fire — In both EIS areas, Alternatives 1 and 2 project substantially less prescribed

fire in forests than any of the other alternatives in

the first decade, as well as over the long term (table

2.15, figures 2.7 and 2.8). Alternative 7 would

have more prescribed fire than Alternatives 1 and

2, but about half the level of Alternatives 3

through 6. However, the prescribed fire in Alternatives 3 through 6 would be primarily designed to

mimic native fire processes. Prescribed fire in the

non-reserve areas of Alternative 7 would be similar

to Alternative 3. Some prescribed natural fires

(unplanned ignitions) would occur in the reserves

of Alternative 7, but because of national fire suppression policy constraints, most fires would not be

allowed to burn as prescribed natural fires. Consequently the fires that occur would be wildfires.

There were relatively small differences in levels of

prescribed fire in the two EIS areas. Within the

Eastside EIS area, the projections for Alternatives

3, 4, and 6 had similar amounts of area affected.

In the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area,

Alternatives 3 and 4 were projected to affect

slightly more area than Alternative 6. In both EIS

areas, Alternative 5 was projected to affect slightly

less area with prescribed fire than Alternative 6.

Thinning and Harvest — In both EIS areas,

thinning was projected to be substantially higher

in Alternative 1 than all other alternatives and less

in Alternative 2 (table 2.15 and figures 2.9 and

2.11). However, the thinning practices of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would be traditional

treatments, rather than treatments designed to

mimic native disturbance regimes as in Alternatives 3 through 7. Thinning treatments to mimic

native structure would be emphasized in Alternatives 3 through 6, and the non-reserve portions of

Alternative 7. These kinds of treatments would

achieve similar vegetation structures as, or in combination with, prescribed burning that mimics

native fire regimes. Alternative 7 would have a

thinning level similar to Alternative 2, and the

levels of area thinned by Alternatives 3 through 6

would be very similar.

The projected levels of harvest among alternatives

followed a pattern similar to the levels of thinning

(table 2.15 and figures 2.10 and 2.12). The ecological harvest treatments of Alternatives 3

through 6 would result in vegetation structure

and composition similar to the native regime.

Vegetation structure and composition from thinning and harvest in Alternative 7 non-reserve

areas would be similar to Alternative 3, and

reserve areas would be primarily affected by wildfire. Although we simulated little change between

alternatives for Other ownerships,1 we assume that

Alternatives 2, 6, and 7, with substantially lower

harvest and thinning levels, would result in

increased harvest on Other forest ownerships.

Wildfire —The projected amount of wildfire

was highest in Alternative 7, which would burn

approximately 9 percent of the area each decade

(figures 2.13 and 2.14; table 2.15). Alternatives 1

and 2 would burn about 7 percent, and

Alternatives 3 through 6 would burn approximately 5 percent. Considering the amount of

BLM/FS lands, these differences among alternatives are substantial.

'All ownerships - all lands in the Basin or EIS area; BLM/FS ownerships - public lands administered by the BLM and FS in the

Basin or EIS area; Other ownerships - private, state, tribal, and non-BLM/FS federal public lands (such as National Parks, and

Fish and Wildlife Service Refuges) in the Basin or EIS area.

Landscape Ecology
Table 2.15 — Percent of BLM/FS lands disturbed in the first decade and in the long-term (50 to 100

years).

Projection

Years

Forest - Harvest

First decade

First decade

Long-term

Long-term

Forest - Thinning

First decade

First decade

Long-term

Long-term

Forest - Prescribed

First decade

First decade

Long-term

Long-term

Forest - Wildfire

First decade

First decade

Long-term

Long-term

Range - Exotics'

First decade

First decade

Long-term

Long-term

Range - Prescribed

First decade

First decade

Long-term

Long-term

Managemei

Area

EEIS

UCRB

EEIS

UCRB

EEIS

UCRB

EEIS

UCRB

Fire

EEIS

UCRB

EEIS

UCRB

EEIS

UCRB

EEIS

UCRB

EEIS

UCRB

EEIS

UCRB

Fire

EEIS

UCRB

EEIS

UCRB

it

1

13.68

7.77

12.26

7.17

3.52

3.59

5.09

3.88

2.04

1.52

2.42

1.66

7.81

5.86

7.88

6.28

0.64

1.35

0.89

1.28

0.90

0.41

0.62

0.36

Alternative

2

7.95

3.40

7.22

3.14

1.71

1.24

2.48

1.28

1.60

1.91

2.11

1.95

8.13

6.14

8.21

6.72

2.61

1.71

0.89

1.28

0.96

0.43

0.60

0.33

3

9.42

5.30

8.87

5.09

2.61

2.16

3.14

1.87

14.89

11.56

15.74

11.65

5.58

4.27

5.19

4.35

0.30

0.70

0.39

0.81

6.02

1.78

2.96

0.98

4

9.31

4.40

8.70

4.64

2.59

2.21

3.17

1.88

14.91

11.60

15.76

11.66

5.61

4.25

5.21

4.38

0.33

0.75

0.49

0.90

6.86

1.93

3.05

0.99

5

9.73

5.33

8.90

5.01

2.54

2.20

3.08

2.05

14.07

9.55

14.96

9.61

5.81

4.64

5.40

4.87

0.35

1.04

0.46

1.00

5.94

0.81

2.92

0.54

6

8.91

3.60

8.33

3.82

2.49

1.97

3.01

1.67

14.61

9.94

15.43

10.03

5.82

4.61

5.42

4.93

0.27

0.41

0.43

0.54

6.70

0.99

2.97

0.58

7

6.57

2.77

5.92

2.79

1.48

1.41

1.80

1.26

8.37

4.13

8.81

4.03

9.41

7.72

9.33

8.40

0.51

0.52

0.58

0.60

5.72

0.88

2.51

0.45

Range - Range Improvement

First decade

First decade

Long-term

Long-term

EEIS

UCRB

EEIS

UCRB

0.23

0.10

0.40

0.15

0.23

0.10

0.43

0.15

0.95

1.23

0.66

0.65

1.68

1.88

0.85

0.76

0.60

0.48

0.53

0.32

1.30

1.14

0.72

0.40

0.98

0.57

0.56

0.22

Range - Grazing Effects

First decade

First decade

Long-term

Long-term

Range - Wildfire

First decade

First decade

Long-term

Long-term

EEIS

UCRB

EEIS

UCRB

EEIS

UCRB

EEIS

UCRB

35.75

17.30

37.69

18.37

9.04

10.11

10.83

11.79

25.05

11.79

27.00

11.77

9.50

9.67

15.26

13.01

34.98

18.96

35.36

18.92

6.87

7.02

7.39

7.20

39.58

20.21

38.19

20.41

6.90

7.03

7.26

7.16

35.12

17.40

36.00

18.51

7.20

8.47

7.96

9.22

37.38

12.58

36.71

13.85

7.14

8.27

7.65

8.53

28.94

9.04

29.36

10.27

9.41

12.57

10.40

12.75

'Qualitatively reduced in Alternative 2 due to an error in the simulation.

Landscape Ecology
PRESCRIBED FIRE - First Decade

Alt. 1

Alt. 2

Alt. 3

Alt. 4

Alt. 5

Alt. 6

Alt. 7

EEIS UCRB

EIS Area

Figure 2.7 — Percent of BLM- and FS-administered lands disturbed by prescribed fire for all forest PVGs for years 1-10.

PRESCRIBED FIRE - Long Term

Alt. 1

Alt. 2

Alt. 3

Alt. 4

Alt. 5

Alt. 6

Alt. 7

EEIS UCRB

EIS Area

Figure 2.8 — Percent of BLM- and FS-administered lands disturbed by prescribed fire for all forest PVGs by decade over 100 years.

94 Landscape Ecology
2.10 — Percent of BLM- and FS-administered lands disturbed by harvest for all forest PVGs for years 1-10.

Landscape Ecology 95
THINNING - Long Term

ffl Alt. 1

I Alt. 2

1 Alt. 3

H Alt. 4

1 Alt. 5

I Alt. 6

i Alt. 7

EEIS UCRB

EIS Area

Figure 2.11 — Percent of BLM- and FS-administered lands disturbed by thinning for all forest PVGs by decade over 100 years.

HARVEST - Long Term

El Alt. 1

• Alt. 2

H Alt. 3

n AH. 4

H Alt. 5

m Ait. ?

EEIS UCRB

EIS Area

Figure 2.12 — Percent or BLM- and FS-administered lands disturbed by harvest for all forest PVGs by decade over 100 years.

96 Landscape Ecology
WILDFIRE - First Decade

H Alt. 1

• Alt. 2

H Alt. 3

D Alt. 4

H Alt. 5

• Alt. 6

Wk Alt. 7

EEIS UCRB

EIS Area

Figure 2.13 — Percent of BLM- and FS-administered lands disturbed by wildfire for all forest PVGs for years 1-10.

WILDFIRE - Long Term

CO

CD

C

CD

a

CD

Q_

m Ait. i

• Alt. 2

M Alt. 3

n AH. 4

El Alt. 5

• Alt. 6

H Alt. 7

EEIS UCRB

EIS Area

Figure 2.14 — Percent ot BLM- and FS-administered lands disturbed by wildfire for all forest PVGs by decade over 100 years.

Landscape Ecology 97
Forest Crown Wildfire — In the simulation,

we modeled the differences in forest wildfires

exhibiting crown fire behavior (table 2.16). For

each alternative, we projected the average amount

of net crown fire per decade for a 100-year period.

The current amount of crown fire is well below the

historical level due to wildfire suppression activities. Although the area of crown fire simulated by

Alternatives 1 and 2 was not significantly different

for BLM- and FS-administered lands, both alternatives were projected to have substantial increases

compared to the current level due to continued

development of high-risk fuel types and patterns.

The only other alternative with levels similar to

the no action alternatives was Alternative 7, which

would have a high probability of large wildfires

with erratic behavior in the reserve areas. Alternatives 4, 3, 6, and 5, respectively, would have

lower amounts of crown fire on BLM- and FSadministered lands in both EIS areas, as well as

the Basin as a whole. Alternative 4 has substantially less crown fire than 5 and 6 in the UCRB but

similar amounts in the EEIS area. Alternative 5

has somewhat higher levels of wildfire than 4, 3,

and 6, respectively, but less than 7.

The results for Alternative 6 in the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area are somewhat higher than

expected from die activity levels stated in the preliminary draft EIS. This disparity could be corrected through more refined mapping of management

prescriptions to high-risk subbasins, urbanrural/wildland interface areas and potential vegetation groups. Similarly, the amount in Alternative 4

could be reduced through further prioritization of

high-risk subbasins, urban-rural/wildland interface

areas, and potential vegetation groups. However, a

key reason for the higher levels in Alternative 6

compared with Alternative 4 is the slower rate of

activities during the first decade. Alternative 3 generally would have less crown fire than Alternative

5, because Alternative 3 has more emphasis on

management of fuels in high-risk dry subbasins

and potential vegetation groups. Response on

Other lands was generally the same across all alternatives because of no assumed difference in the

management of fuels and fire between alternatives

on Other lands. However, the strategic reduction

of crown fire risk in Alternative 4 would also result

in an associated reduction of wildfire risk on adjacent lands of Other ownerships. In contrast, the

lack of strategic reduction of crown fire risk in

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 and lower levels of

restoration activities in Alternatives 6 and 7 would

result in increased risks to adjacent lands in Other

ownerships.

Forest Mortality Susceptibility — We modeled die net insect and disease mortality susceptibility in forests for the alternatives for 100 years

(table 2.17). Currently, on BLM- and FSadministered lands, the potential tree mortality

from insects and disease is nearly twice the historical levels. The shift to more insect- and diseasevulnerable forests is attributed to fire exclusion

and past harvest practices (Hann and others, in

press; Hessburg and others 1996).

For the Basin, the insect and disease potential of

Alternatives 1 and 2 would have similar increases

on BLM- and FS-administered lands relative to

the current condition. In the Eastside EIS area,

the increases would be substantial, at approximately 3 percent of the land area. However, the

insect and disease susceptibility in the Upper

Columbia River Basin EIS area would decrease as

a result of Alternatives 1 and 2. This increase in

the EEIS area and decrease in the UCRB EIS area

is caused by differences in long-term response to

pre-settlement disturbance and early and recent

historical managements radier than by the alternatives. The relative differences between alternatives

indicate the differences related to alternative management strategies. Although Alternative 4 would

reduce the susceptibility more than all other alternatives for the Basin as a whole and for the two

EIS areas, insect and disease mortality would still

be well above historical levels. Alternative 6 would

have die next lowest susceptibility, although its

level would be very similar to Alternatives 3 and 5

for the Basin and both EIS areas. Alternative 7

would have a level slightly below the no action

alternatives, but higher than Alternatives 3

through 6.

Landscape Ecology
Table 2.16 — Net forest crown fire at year 100.'

Management

Area

EEIS

EEIS

GYE

2

UCRB

UCRB

Ownership

BLM/FS

Other

3

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

Other

3

Total BLM/FS

Total Other

3

Total All

Total

Hectares

11,768,500

16,648,500

1,514,100

16,978,700

1 1 ,555,600

30,261 ,300

28,204,100

58,465,400

Historical

42,500

48,700

6,500

72,100

38,300

121,100

87,000

208,200

Current

29,900

28,000

5,200

43,000

20,100

78,100

48,100

126,200

Alt. 1

38,400

38,800

5,900

51 ,300

28,200

95,600

67,000

162,600

Alt. 2

Hectares

38,600

38,800

7,000

55,900

28,200

101,500

67,000

166,500

Alt. 3 Alt. 4 A

of Disturbance

15,200

38,800

4,100

29,400

28,200

48,600

67,000

13,500

38,800

3,400

26,600

28,200

43,500

67,000

115,600 110,500

16

38

4

35

28

56

67

123

Percent of EIS Ownership

EEIS

EEIS

GYE

UCRB

UCRB

Total

Total

Total

BLM/FS

Other

3

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

Other

3

BLM/FS

Other

3

All

0.36

0.29

0.43

0.42

0.33

0.40

0.31

0.36

0.25

0.17

0.34

0.25

0.17

0.26

0.17

0.22

0.33

0.23

0.39

0.30

0.24

0.32

0.24

0.28

0.33

0.23

0.46

0.33

0.24

0.34

0.24

0.28

0.13

0.23

0.27

0.17

0.24

0.16

0.24

0.20

0.11

0.23

0.22

0.16

0.24

0.14

0.24

0.19

"Hectare = 2.47 acres; rounded to the nearest 100. Net infers the effect of mosaic pattern differences between alternatives.

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) area is not part of the decision for the UCRB EIS, but is included for completeness and cumulative eff

'Minor adjustments to Alternatives 2 (EEIS, UCRB, and Total), 6 (UCRB and Total), and 7 (EEIS, UCRB, and Total) modeled values for Other la

tions. Attempts to model differences in contagion effects of BLM and FS on Other lands did not successfully project differences.
Table 2.17 — Net forest insect and disease mortality susceptibility at year 100.'

Management

Area

EEIS

EEIS

GYE

2

UCRB

UCRB

Total BLM/FS

Total Other

3

Total All

EEIS

EEIS

GYE

UCRB

UCRB

Ownership

BLM/FS

Other

3

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

Other

3

BLM/FS

Other

3

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

Other

3

Total

Hectares

1 1 ,768,500

16,648,500

1,514,100

16,978,700

11,555,600

30,261 ,300

28,204,100

58,465,400

Total BLM/FS

Total Other

3

Total All

Historical

957,700

895,100

273,000

1,781,900

827,400

3,012,500

1,722,500

4,735,000

8.1

5.4

18.0

10.5

7.2

10.0

6.1

8.1

Current

1,900,100

1,249,100

485,900

3,588,000

1 ,400,600

5,974,000

2,649,700

8,623,700

16.1

7.5

32.1

21.1

12.1

19.7

9.4

14.8

AIM

2,204,000

1 ,985,600

560,200

3,298,500

1,618,600

6,062,600

3,604,200

9,666,800

18.7

11.9

37.0

19.4

14.0

20.0

12.8

16.5

Alt. 2

Hectares of

2,289,500

1,985,600

536,700

3,332,800

1,618,600

6,159,000

3,604,200

9,027,700

Percent of EIS

19.5

11.9

35.4

19.6

14.0

20.4

12.8

15.4

Alt. 3

Disturbance

1,560,000

1,985,600

414,500

2,344,700

1,618,600

4,319,200

3,604,200

7,923,400

Ownership

13.3

11.9

27.4

13.8

14.0

14.3

12.8

13.6

Alt. 4

1 ,368,800

1 ,985,600

356,800

2,069,500

1,618,600

3,795,100

3,604,200

7,399,300

11.6

11.9

23.6

12.2

14.0

12.5

12.8

12.7

A

1,559

1,985

427

2,506

1,618

4,493

3,604

8,097

'Hectare = 2.47 acres; rounded to the nearest 100. Net infers the effect of mosaic pattern differences between alternatives.

2The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) area is not part of the decision for the UCRB EIS, but is included for completeness and cumulative effe

3Minor adjustments to Alternatives 2 (EEIS, UCRB, and Total) and 7 (EEIS, UCRB, and Total) modeled values for Other lands to correct errors in 

differences in contagion affects of BLM and FS on Other lands did not successfully project differences.
The insect and disease susceptibility of Alternative

4 may be higher than the preliminary draft EIS

standards (appendix I), and the activity levels

would indicate. However, the current cluster strategy lacks adequate spatial prioritization. This disparity could be corrected through a more refined

mapping effort of prescriptions by high-risk subbasins and potential vegetation groups. The insect

and disease response on Other lands was similar

among alternatives, but there would be some contagion effects to Other lands. However, the strategic reduction of insect and disease risks in Alternative 4 would also result in an associated reduction of wildfire risk on adjacent lands of Other

ownerships. In contrast, the lack of strategic reduction of insect and disease risk in Alternatives 1, 2,

3, 5 and 7 and lower levels of restoration activities

in Alternatives 6 and 7 would result in increased

risks to adjacent lands in other ownerships.

Forest Disturbance Summary — The total

direct disturbances for wildfire, prescribed fire,

thinning, and harvest varied among alternatives on

BLM- and FS-administered lands (table 2.18).

There was little simulated difference in disturbance among alternatives for Other lands because

the alternatives only affected BLM- and FSadministered lands. However, there are some contagion effects relative to crown fire risk, insect and

disease mortality, and harvest levels. The first

decade and long-term average total direct disturbance areas for BLM- and FS-administered lands

varied primarily between the no action (1 and 2),

restoration (3-6), and reserve (7) alternatives. The

areas of disturbance on BLM- and FS-administered lands of the no action Alternative 2 would be

substantially below the HRV average, while Alternative 1 (also a no action alternative) would be

only slightly below the HRV average. The disturbances resulting from Alternatives 3 through 6

would be similar to, or somewhat above, the historical average. Although the areas of disturbance

resulting from Alternatives 7 and 1 would be similar, the dominant disturbance in Alternative 7 is

wildfire, whereas timber harvest is the dominant

disturbance in Alternative 1. The restoration alternatives that would be somewhat above HRV

(Alternatives 3, 4, and 5) do not have activity levels high enough to shift the current trajectory

toward HRV because of the lack of the high current departure across the Basin. Appendices 2D,

2E, 2F, 2G, 2H, and 21 provide more detailed first

decade, long-term, ERU, PVG, and forest and

range cluster group information.

Rangeland Disturbances

Prescribed Fire — The levels of prescribed

fire in Alternatives 1 and 2 are low compared to

the other alternatives (figures 2.15 and 2.16,

table 2.15). These two alternatives would have a

traditional type of treatments designed to increase

forage quantity and quality, whereas the prescribed fire in Alternatives 3 through 6 would be

Table 2.18 — Percent of Basin forested and rangeland potential vegetation groups (PVGs) affected by

decade by direct disturbance (wildfire, prescribed fire, thinning, harvest, seeding, exotic control) by

alternative.

Vegetation

Type

Forest

Forest

Forest

Forest

Range

Range

Range

Range

Ownership

Class

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

Other

Other

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

Other

Other

Projection

Years

First decade

Long-term

First decade

Long-term

First decade

Long-term

First decade

Long-term

HRV

21

21

29

29

23

23

33

33

Alternative

1

18

18

25

26

11

12

15

19

2

13

14

29

29

11

15

15

19

3

24

24

25

26

12

10

15

19

4

23

24

25

26

14

10

15

19

5

22

23

25

26

12

11

15

19

6

22

22

25

26

13

11

16

18

7

18

18

26

26

15

14

15

18

Landscape Ecology
designed to mimic native fire processes and maintain native vegetation composition and structure.

Alternatives 3 and 5 would have moderate levels

of prescribed fire, Alternatives 4 and 6 would have

relatively high levels, and Alternative 7 would

have levels similar to Alternative 3 in the nonreserve areas and very little prescribed fire in the

reserve areas.

Range Improvements and Plan Revision/

Implementation — The alternatives were evaluated for their level of range structural and nonstructural improvements, and the revision and

implementation of new range allotment plans

(figures 2.17 and 2.18, table 2.15). Range

improvements consisted of woodland cutting, forage seeding, and weed control. These activities

occurred at low levels in Alternatives 1 and 2;

moderate levels in Alternatives 3, 5, and 7; and

relatively high levels in Alternatives 4 and 6, with

the highest levels in Alternative 4. Range improvements were at very low amounts within the

reserve areas of Alternative 7.

Grazing — Within both EIS areas, there would

be more vegetation succession effects from grazing

under Alternative 1 than under Alternatives 3

through 6. This is because Alternative 1 has less

emphasis on proper livestock distribution and little

emphasis on representing native herbivory patterns

and processes. The effects of grazing in Alternative

2 would be similar to Alternative 1, except for less

impact in riparian areas. Alternative 7 would have

grazing levels similar to Alternative 3 in the nonreserve areas, but no livestock grazing in die

reserves. Alternatives 4 and 6 would have grazing

that best represents the native regime.

Total grazing effects for die first decade would

range from a high in Alternative 4, to a low in

Alternative 2 (figure 2.19). Total grazing effects

over the long term (100 years) would range from a

high for Alternatives 1 and 4, to a low for Alternative 2 (figure 2.20). We estimate that die historical

grazing effect levels ranged from 20 to 40 percent,

widi only 2 percent of the area per year grazed at

levels that would change successional pathways.

Grazing may not negatively affect ecosystem patterns and processes. The processes, composition,

and structure of native ecosystems can be maintained if grazing is properly managed. For example, by substantially reducing fine fuels, grazing

also reduces the associated probability of wildfire

and subsequent invasion of exotics. Consequently,

we conclude it is not the amount of grazing, but

the type and timing of grazing that may cause

departure in native composition and structure, or

loss of riparian or upland soil capability. The alternatives mimic the native regime from closest fit to

least fit in order of 6, 4, 3, 7, 5, 2, and 1.

Exotic Herbland — The levels of exotic herbland were predicted to be highest for Alternatives

1 and 2, lowest for Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6,

and intermediate in Alternative 7 (figures 2.21

and 2.22, table 2.15). The amount of exotic herbland within the non-reserve areas of Alternative 7

was expected to be similar to Alternative 3.

Predictability of amount in the reserve areas of

Alternative 7 is poor because of multiple possible

outcomes in response to erratic fire patterns,

increase of big game and wild horses, and lack of

restoration of currently disturbed areas.

Rangeland Wildfire — Alternatives 1 and 2

were expected to have relatively high levels of

wildfire, and Alternative 4 much lower levels (figures 2.23 and 2.24, table 2.15). Alternatives 4 and

6 were predicted to have wildfire levels much

lower than Alternative 1 and 2, and slightly less

than Alternatives 3 and 5. The amount of wildfire

expected in the non-reserve portions of Alternative 7 would be similar to Alternative 3, but quite

high and with erratic behavior and effects inside

the reserves.

Within the reserves, areas characterized as dry

grass and dry shrub would be most affected by the

severe effects of wildfires. The cool shrub and

riparian potential vegetation groups would be less

likely to have severe fire effects. Wildfire behavior

in the reserves in Alternative 7 would be much

more erratic than for other alternatives. Consequently, the fire effects in the reserves would be

less predictable than for the other alternatives.

102 Landscape Ecology
PRESCRIBED FIRE - First Decade

ID Alt. l

• Alt. 2

I Alt. 3

H Alt. 4

I Alt. 5

• Alt. 6

1 Alt. 7

EEIS UCRB

EIS Area

Figure 2.15 — Percent of BLM- and FS-administered lands disturbed by prescribed fire for all rangeland and riparian PVGs for

years 1-10.

PRESCRIBED FIRE - Long Term

Alt. 1

Alt. 2

Alt. 3

Alt. 4

Alt. 5

Alt. 6

Alt. 7

EEIS UCRB

EIS Area

Figure 2.16 — Percent of BLM- and FS-administered lands disturbed by prescribed fire for all rangeland and riparian PVGs by

decade over 100 years.

Landscape Ecology 103
RANGELAND IMPROVEMENT - First Decade

H Alt. 1

• Alt. 2

H Alt. 3

D Alt. 4

H Alt. 5

• Alt. 6

W, Alt. 7

EEIS UCRB

EIS Area

Figure 2.17 — Percent ot BLM- and FS-administered lands disturbed by nonstructural rangeland improvement for all rangeland

and riparian PVGs for years 1-10.

RANGELAND IMPROVEMENT - Long Term

Alt. 1

Alt. 2

Alt. 3

Alt. 4

Alt. 5

Alt. 6

Alt. 7

EEIS UCRB

EIS Area

Figure 2.18 — Percent of BLM- and FS-administered lands disturbed by nonstructural rangeland improvement for all rangeland

and riparian PVGs by decade over 100 years.

104 Landscape Ecology
GRAZING EFFECTS - First Decade

H Alt. 1

• Alt. 2

H Alt. 3

D Alt. 4

ii Alt. 5

• Alt. 6

11 Alt. 7

EEIS UCRB

EIS Area

Figure 2.19 — Percent of BLM- and PS-administered lands disturbed by grazing effects for all rangeland and riparian PVGs for

years 1-10.

GRAZING EFFECTS - Long Term

CD Alt. 1

• Alt. 2

H Alt. 3

D Alt. 4

11 Alt. 5

• Alt. 6

m Alt. 7

EEIS UCRB

EIS Area

Figure 2.20 — Percent of BLM- and FS-aclministered lands disturbed by grazing effects for all rangeland and riparian PVGs by

decade over the 100 years.

Landscape Ecology 105
Rangeland Disturbance Summary — The

effects of grazing relate to the ability of management to mimic ecosystem processes and to maintain native vegetation composition and structure.

The effects would vary by alternative, depending

on:

• Amounts of grazing, wildfire, and exotics

relative to the amount of improvements and

restoration of rangeland vegetation and livestock

distribution.

• Amount of prescribed fire.

• Intensity of revising and implementing rangeland allotment plans.

Direct rangeland disturbances, including vegetation improvements, prescribed fire, and wildfire,

that were projected for the first decade would

affect from 10 to 15 percent of the area per

decade, with Alternatives 1 and 2 disturbing the

least area, and Alternative 7 disturbing the most

area. Rangeland disturbance projections for Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 6 for the two EIS areas were

similar. The HRV average is almost twice this

level. However, given the use of grazing to represent herbivory and reduction of fine fuels in Alternatives 3, 4, and 6, this level is probably appropriate. Disturbance patterns have high departure

from the native regimes in Alternatives 1 and 2

and moderate departure in Alternatives 5 and 7.

Landscape Scale Disturbances

Total Direct Disturbance — An evaluation of

total direct disturbance across all landscapes provides an indicator when compared to the average

disturbance for the 400-year simulation (table

2.18). Total disturbance includes prescribed fire,

wildfire, timber harvest and thinning on both

forests and rangelands. These disturbances were

assumed to represent disturbances similar to the

native regime in Alternatives 3 through 6. Grazing effects were not included in Alternatives 3

through 7 because they were assumed to mimic

native grazing and not cause direct change.

EXOTIC HERBLAND - First Decade

EEIS UCRB

EIS Area

Alt. 1

Alt. 2

Alt. 3

Alt. 4

Alt. 5

Alt. 6

Alt. 7

Figure 2.21 — Percent of BLM- and FS-administered lands disturbed by exotics for all rangeland and riparian PVGs for years

1-10. Exotics in Alternative 2 were simulated at too high a level, so they have been adjusted to be similar with Alternative 1.

106 Landscape Ecology
Alternatives 1 and 2 are considerably less than the

average total direct disturbance on BLM- and FSadministered land because of low levels of prescribed fire and high emphasis on wildfire suppression. Alternative 2 is less than Alternative 1

because of lower harvest in riparian buffer areas

and in the late-serai forest. On Other ownerships

the amount of harvest increases in Alternative 2

compared to Alternative 1 because of reduced

timber availability on public lands. Alternative 7

is similar in total amount to Alternative 1 on

BLM- and FS-administered land because of

reduced amounts of timber harvest and prescribed fire, but higher amounts of wildfire.

Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 all had similar levels

of total disturbance; their differences were primarily related to spatial location by subbasin and

type of disturbance.

Wildfire —The projected levels of wildfire

among alternatives differed primarily between the

no action alternatives (1 and 2), the restoration

alternatives (3 through 6), and the reserve alternative (7). The restoration alternatives would result

in approximately a 20 percent reduction in wildfires compared to the no action alternatives in the

first decade and in the long term (table 2.15 and

figures 2.13, 2.14, 2.23, and 2.24). There were

minor differences between Alternatives 3 through

6 in the first decade, but differences were more

pronounced in the long term. In general, Alternatives 3 and 4 would have somewhat less wildfire

than Alternatives 5 and 6, but for different reasons. Alternative 3, due to its local emphasis,

would have higher levels of traditional fire suppression in combination with some restoration, while

Alternative 4 would place more emphasis on proactive restoration. Alternative 5 would have higher

wildfire due to higher risk in the low production

areas. This would occur because restoration and

production projects would be prioritized to the

moist forest and productive range subbasins, with

EXOTIC HERBLAND - Long Term

Alt. 1

Alt. 2

Alt. 3

Alt. 4

Alt. 5

Alt. 6

Alt. 7

EEIS UCRB

EIS Area

Figure 2.22 — Percent of BLM- and FS-administered lands disturbed by exotics for all range and riparian PVGs by decade over

100 vears. Exotics in Alternative 2 were simulated ; high a level, so they have been adjusted to be similar with Alternative 1.

Landscape Ecology 107
WILDFIRE - First Decade

Alt. 1

Alt. 2 Ait. s Alt. 4

Alt. 5

Alt. 6

Alt. 7

EEIS UCRB

EIS Area

Figure 2.23 — Percent of BLM- and FS-administered lands disturbed by wildfire for all rangeland and riparian PVGs for years 1-

WILDFIRE - Long Term

Alt. 1

Alt. 2

Alt. 3

Alt. 4

Alt. 5

Alt. 6

Alt. 7

EEIS UCRB

EIS Area

Figure 2.24 — Percent of BLM- and FS-administered lands disturbed by wildfire for all rangeland and riparian PVGs by decade

over 100 years.

108 Landscape Ecology
low proactive restoration in the dry forest and

range subbasins. Alternative 6 would have higher

wildfire related to lower levels of restoration activities compared to Alternative 4. Particularly, the

low levels of restoration in the first decade predispose Alternative 6 to higher risks in the long

term. Wildfire levels could be substantially

reduced in Alternatives 4 and 6 through more

refined spatial and temporal prioritization of

high-risk subbasins and subwatersheds, potential

vegetation groups, and the urban-rural/wildland

interface area. This refinement would generally

not be possible in the other alternatives since

their themes and standards do not emphasize

Basin-wide restoration and reduction of fire risk.

Soil Disturbances — Total soil disturbance was

modeled as a summary characteristic for comparing alternatives (Hann and others 1997). Values

modeled were the combined soil disturbances for

the BLM- and FS-administered lands (table 2.19).

The Other lands were not summarized since alternatives did not influence them. For the Basin, the

highest levels of cumulative soil disturbance

would be produced in Alternatives 1 and 2, the

no action alternatives. The least amount of disturbance would be produced in Alternatives 4, 6,

and 7, which had little difference among them.

Alternative 5 would produce the most disturbance

of Alternatives 3 through 7, and Alternative 3

slightly less than Alternative 5. These trends

would be similar for both EIS areas.

Ability to Mimic Native Composition and

Structure — We evaluated the alternatives by

comparing their general ability to mimic or represent native ecological processes. The long-term

simulation of HRV wildfire provided a basis for

this comparison. The total change of direct forest

and rangeland disturbance was compared between

the HRV and alternative simulations. Harvest and

wildfire were generally assumed to be equivalent

to lethal crown fire, and thinning and prescribed

fire were generally assumed to be equivalent to

mixed and nonlethal fires. Grazing effects, invasion by and control of exotics, rangeland restoration, and range allotment plan revisions/implementation were also evaluated.

Alternatives 1 and 2 would emphasize traditional

treatments that do not attempt to mimic the

types of fire regimes, herbivory patterns, and

other effects that are consistent with the biophysical regime and inherent disturbance processes.

Alternatives 4 and 6 have the strongest direction

and potential for implementing ecological treatments that mimic native processes. Given the

complex nature of these regimes and the emphasis

Table 2.19 — Forest and rangeland soil disturbance summary by preliminary draft EIS alternatives for

BLM- and FS-administered lands.

Hectares' of Disturbance by Alternative

EIS Area2

EEIS

GYE

UCRB

Assessment3

Area Total

1

3,150,800

59,800

2,225,100

5,435,704

2

2,973,100

43,200

1,948,100

4,964,400

3

2,412,000

47,000

1 ,692,400

4,151,400

4

2,297,000

46,200

1 ,663,400

4,006,600

5

2,562,700

47,700

1 ,993,800

4,604,200

6

2,334,200

38,900

1 ,652,800

4,025,900

7

2,351,500

38,900

1 ,692,000

4,082,400

'Hectare = 2.47 acres; rounded to nearest 100.

2EEIS = Eastside EIS area.

GYE = Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem area (not part of decision for EEIS/UCRB, but included for completeness and cumulative effects within

Assessment area).

UCRB = Upper Columbia River Basin area.

'Total includes soil disturbance associated with: harvest, thinning, wildfire, prescribed fire, grazing, exotics, and range improvements. Total may

sum to more than the EIS area due to overlap of disturbance types. All data should be displayed as relative values among alternatives.

Landscape Ecology
of Alternative 6 on technology development and

transfer, we believe that Alternative 6 would most

closely mimic or represent native effects at a project level. Alternative 4 would have higher activity

levels, and thus more closely mimic or represent

native processes in terms of total disturbance at a

landscape scale. Alternatives 1 and 2 would have

the least ability to mimic the native regime, while

Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 would have intermediate

levels.

Although the effects of Alternatives 4 and 6

would be similar, Alternative 4 would have a more

rapid rate of implementation and, consequently,

increased potential for error at mid- and finescales on sensitive sites. However, the slower

implementation rate of Alternative 6 leads to

higher potential for wildfire and invasion of

exotics. Alternative 3 would have potential to

diverge considerably from the native regime

because of its emphasis on local priorities and its

minimal change from the current forest and

resource plans. Alternative 5 would also diverge

considerably from the natural regimes due to its

emphasis on economic efficiency and more production types. Alternative 7 would vary according

to reserve/non-reserve allocations, with its nonreserve areas similar to Alternative 3 and its

reserve areas tending toward large, erratic fires

that do not mimic the native regime.

Additional detail about fire behavior, patterns,

and effects is presented in this chapter in the section on evaluation of vegetation response and disturbance patterns.

Spatial Distribution of Disturbances — For

evaluation purposes, we aggregated forest and

range clusters into five groups [F, J, L, M, and H

(map 2.22 and table 2.14)]2 based upon their composition of potential vegetation type groups, ownership, amounts of wilderness, forest and rangeland

integrity, fire risk, and urban/wildland interface

(table 2.14).

The Eastside EIS area:

• Was dominated by group L.

• Had a small amount of group M.

• Had a moderate amount of group F.

• Had small amounts of groups J and H.

The Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area:

• Was dominated by groups M and H.

• Had a moderate amount of groups F and J.

• Had a relatively small amount of group L.

Forest disturbances were separated into four

groups: prescribed fire, thinning, harvest, and wildfire (table 2.20). The amount of each type of disturbance varied, by alternative, in terms of its spatial allocation to the subbasin groups. Alternatives

1 and 2 would have activities relatively evenly distributed considering the size of each group. However, the wilderness prescribed natural fire program

in subbasin group H in Alternative 2 would be

considerably higher than in Alternative 1. Differences among Alternatives 3 through 7 are very

apparent when looking at the spatial allocation of

activities across the forest and range cluster groups.

Relative to restoration, Alternatives 4 and 6 would

generally place the highest mix of activities in the

areas with the lowest integrity. Those areas would

tend to be concentrated in groups L and J for the

Eastside EIS; and in M, F, and J for die Upper

Columbia River Basin EIS. For the Eastside EIS,

the harvest, thinning, and prescribed fire disturbances would be concentrated spatially and temporally in areas J and L, where there is a high risk in

the urban/wildland interface involving BLM- and

FS-administered lands. Harvest, thinning, and prescribed fire disturbances for the Upper Columbia

River Basin would be concentrated spatially and

temporally in areas F, J, and M; these areas have a

high risk in the urban/wildland interface involving

BLM- and FS-administered lands.

2Group F: high urban/wildland interface, low integrity, moderate-high fire risk. Group J: high urban/wildland interface, moderate

integrity, moderate fire risk. Group L: moderate urban/wildland interface, low integrity, high fire risk. Group M: low urban/wildland interface, low-moderate integrity, moderate fire risk. Group H: low urban/wildland interface, high integrity, moderate fire risk.

Landscape Ecology
Table 2.20 — Percent of average yearly disturbance hectares for BLM- and FS-administered lands for the

long-term by forest and range cluster group.

Disturbance

Forest-Harvest

Forest-Harvest

Forest-Harvest

Forest-Harvest

Forest-Harvest

Forest-Prescribed Fire

Forest-Prescribed Fire

Forest-Prescribed Fire

Forest-Prescribed Fire

Forest-Prescribed Fire

Forest-Thinning

Forest-Thinning

Forest-Thinning

Forest-Thinning

Forest-Thinning

Forest-Wildfire

Forest-Wildfire

Forest-Wildfire

Forest-Wildfire

Forest-Wildfire

Range-Exotics

Range-Exotics

Range-Exotics

Range-Exotics

Range-Exotics

Range-Grazing

Range-Grazing

Range-Grazing

Range-Grazing

Range-Grazing

Range-Prescribed Fire

Range-Prescribed Fire

Range-Prescribed Fire

Range-Prescribed Fire

Range-Prescribed Fire

Range-Wildfire

Range-Wildfire

Range-Wildfire

Range-Wildfire

Range-Wildfire

Rangeland Improvement

Rangeland Improvement

Rangeland Improvement

Rangeland Improvement

Rangeland Improvement

Cluster

Group

H

J

L

M

F

F

H

J

L

M

J

F

M

H

L

F

H

J

L

M

H

J

L

M

F

H

F

J

L

M

J

L

M

F

H

M

J

L

H

F

M

L

J

H

F

1

0.16

0.10

0.38

0.28

0.08

0.07

0.42

0.07

0.32

0.12

0.11

0.09

0.34

0.16

0.31

0.08

0.41

0.09

0.25

0.18

0.10

0.01

0.46

0.31

0.11

0.07

0.04

0.01

0.57

0.32

0.01

0.48

0.26

0.20

0.05

0.31

0.01

0.50

0.09

0.09

0.21

0.54

0.00

0.03

0.21

2

0.09

0.10

0.43

0.33

0.05

0.07

0.46

0.08

0.26

0.13

0.10

0.05

0.37

0.11

0.38

0.08

0.42

0.09

0.24

0.18

0.02

0.00

0.68

0.27

0.04

0.05

0.04

0.01

0.58

0.32

0.00

0.50

0.23

0.25

0.02

0.30

0.00

0.57

0.06

0.07

0.22

0.57

0.00

0.03

0.18

3

0.19

0.09

0.37

0.29

0.06

0.07

0.36

0.08

0.31

0.19

0.10

0.07

0.34

0.17

0.32

0.08

0.40

0.09

0.24

0.19

0.19

0.02

0.33

0.35

0.12

0.08

0.04

0.01

0.55

0.32

0.00

0.52

0.19

0.25

0.03

0.32

0.00

0.50

0.09

0.08

0.36

0.46

0.01

0.08

0.09

Alternative

4

0.20

0.09

0.39

0.24

0.08

0.07

0.36

0.08

0.31

0.19

0.10

0.09

0.33

0.17

0.32

0.07

0.40

0.09

0.24

0.20

0.16

0.02

0.38

0.31

0.13

0.07

0.05

0.01

0.58

0.29

0.00

0.52

0.19

0.25

0.03

0.33

0.00

0.50

0.09

0.08

0.29

0.54

0.01

0.06

0.10

5

0.14

0.09

0.38

0.31

0.09

0.09

0.31

0.09

0.35

0.17

0.10

0.09

0.37

0.13

0.31

0.06

0.45

0.08

0.22

0.19

0.16

0.01

0.27

0.43

0.12

0.07

0.04

0.01

0.55

0.32

0.00

0.60

0.11

0.28

0.01

0.39

0.00

0.42

0.10

0.08

0.12

0.72

0.01

0.03

0.12

6

0.17

0.08

0.42

0.25

0.07

0.05

0.31

0.08

0.34

0.21

0.10

0.07

0.34

0.16

0.33

0.09

0.43

0.08

0.22

0.18

0.15

0.02

0.52

0.16

0.16

0.04

0.05

0.01

0.66

0.24

0.00

0.59

0.11

0.28

0.01

0.38

0.00

0.45

0.09

0.08

0.08

0.77

0.01

0.03

0.12

7

0.06

0.10

0.50

0.29

0.05

0.02

0.08

0.11

0.52

0.26

0.11

0.05

0.37

0.07

0.40

0.07

0.52

0.08

0.17

0.15

0.09

0.01

0.44

0.35

0.12

0.04

0.05

0.01

0.65

0.25

0.00

0.60

0.07

0.33

0.01

0.33

0.01

0.40

0.16

0.11

0.06

0.78

0.00

0.00

0.15

Landscape Ecology 1H
Alternative 3, which places more emphasis on

local prioritization and minimal consideration on

Forest and Resource plans, would have less concentrated activities than Alternatives 4 and 6.

Alternative 5, which emphasizes restoration and

production on the more productive lands, would

focus activities more in groups L and M in the

Eastside EIS area, and groups M and H in the

Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area. Alternative

7, which has fewer activities due to its reserve

areas, would have management disturbances distributed similar to Alternative 3 for the nonreserve areas.

Alternative Management

Activity Levels

There is considerable difference among alternatives regarding the flexibility in the amounts of

management activity levels that would produce

the same desired effects relative to landscape patterns, processes, and associated soil disturbances

described in the theme, DFCs, and standards. The

more consistent an alternative's trajectory is with

biophysical limitations and inherent disturbance

processes, the greater the probability that planned

and unplanned disturbances are consistent with

the patterns and processes in which native aquatic

and terrestrial species have evolved (Hann and

others, in press). This leads to greater flexibility in

the management of disturbance. There are several

key points related to this consistency:

• Alternatives that are more consistent with the

biophysical regime and inherent disturbance

processes provide higher predictability of causeand-effect relationships to other variables (such

as erosion and sediment delivery, wildfire, or

timber harvest) that affect aquatic, terrestrial,

social, and economic conditions. Consequently,

hierarchical analysis of landscape dynamics and

associated effects on aquatic, terrestrial, social,

and economic conditions provides a context and

template that can improve the confidence in

analysis. This has the potential to reduce the

cost of analysis and associated monitoring and

inventory.

• Alternatives that are more consistent widi the

biophysical regime and inherent disturbance

processes have lower probabilities for unexpected

events. This in turn leads to higher probabilities

of achieving the alternative theme, desired future

condition, standards, and predicted effects.

Consequently, there is more flexibility across

space and through time to adjust activities and

still achieve standards for aquatic and terrestrial

conservation, clean air and water, and maintenance or improvement of ecosystem integrity.

• Alternatives that are more consistent with the

biophysical regime and inherent disturbance

processes have activities that are more concentrated in time and space. Consequently, activities at mid- and fine-scales can be implemented

at lower cost per unit of area, and there is a

lower probability of losing investments to unexpected disturbance events.

To assess the flexibility of management activity

levels in relation to broad-, mid-, and fine-scale

patterns, processes, and effects, we used:

• Information from the multiple stochastic simulations of CRBSUM (Keane and others 1996).

• Summary of mid-scale dynamics (Hessburg and

others 1996; Ottmar and others 1996).

• Multi-scale analysis of landscape dynamics

(Hann and others, in press).

• Estimates of response that would be obtained

from multiple stochastic simulations at a midand fine-scale level.

Estimates at the mid- and fine-scale levels were

based on our analysis of multi-scale relationships

within the various model prescriptions assigned to

the alternative strategies, which included:

• Multi-scale data in CRBSUM prescription

models.

• CRBLAD data system.

• Mid- and fine-scale projection models.

• Mid-scale landscape dynamics (Hessburg and

others 1996; Ottmar and others 1996).

Landscape Ecology
• Fine-scale plot data (Hann and others, in press;

Hann and others 1997).

It is important to emphasize that the estimates for

the mid- and fine-scale levels are useful for displaying differences across alternatives at the Basin

scale, but would not likely be adequate for implementation. Three variables were evaluated to provide a basis for determining the flexibility between

alternatives:

• Similarity of an alternative's trajectory to the

biophysical and succession/disturbance regime of

multi-scale patterns and processes across space

and through time.

• Alternative theme, DFCs, and standards, that

would provide for consistency of forest and

range activities in producing effects similar to

the native regime.

• Consistency of the alternative's theme, DFCs,

and standards; adjusted by the alternative's flexibility and emphasis, to adjust standards in order

to improve consistency with the biophysical

regime and inherent disturbance processes.

Because of the large departures of the trajectories

of the no action alternatives (1 and 2) from the

biophysical regime and succession/disturbance

regime, the predictability of disturbance response

for these two alternatives is poor (table 2.21).

These predictability ratings produce low confidence in the ability of Alternatives 1 and 2 to

achieve their projected activity levels, in both the

short and long term, coincidental to meeting the

theme and DFCs. Alternatives 4 and 6 have the

highest predictability based on the assumption

that single state/size standards (such as riparian

buffers) would be refitted to the biophysical template within the first decade. Alternatives 3, 5 and

7 have respectively less confidence. Alternative 4

has higher confidence than Alternative 6 because

of higher rates of restoration of high risk wildfire,

road, and riparian conditions in the first decade.

Large differences also exist in the flexibility among

alternatives to consider how the various activities

might substitute for each other and still produce

the same effects (such as harvest, thinning, or

grazing for prescribed fire). For example, because

most activities in the no action alternatives fit a

traditional commodity or reserve pattern, and also

have high potential for variability in effects

between administrative units, those two alternatives have low flexibility to mix activities. As a

result, the confidence in producing the predicted

effects is relatively low, even without changing the

activity levels or exchanging activities.

Alternatives 7, 5, 3, 4, and 6 have successively

increased levels of confidence. The no action alternatives also have very low connectivity between

standards of different scales and high potential for

one or two fine-scale standards to change the outcome at a coarser scale in a manner that is either

unpredictable or does not achieve the desired outcomes or standards. Alternatives 7, 5, 3, 4 and 6

Table 2.21 — Difference in confidence and flexibility of projected management-implementation activity

levels based on a revitalized index for multi-scale relationships.

Alternative

1

Biophysical Regime Response Predictability

Activity Mixing Flexibility to Produce

Similar Effects

Connectivity Between Biophysical Regime and

Standards of Different Scales

Relative Activity Level Flexibility

0.20 0.20 0.55 0.90 0.40 0.80 0.35

0.15 0.10 0.60 0.80 0.30 0.85 0.20

0.10 0.15 0.25 0.80 0.25 0.90 0.25

1.00 1.00 3.13 5.56 2.20 5.67 1.80

Landscape Ecology
have respectively greater levels of flexibility. The

high levels in Alternatives 6 and 4 are based on the

assumption that single state/size standards (such as

riparian buffers) will be adjusted and fit to the biophysical template within the first decade.

By combining the three variables (similarity of

trajectory, activity consistency, and scale connectivity), a relative index of the flexibility in the

total activity levels was determined. The no action

alternatives would have the lowest combined values and provide the base index of 1.0. A base

index of 1.0 generally indicates that there would

be little relative room for adjustments in implementing and monitoring the management activity

levels as well as low confidence in ability to produce the predicted effects.

Alternatives 4 and 6 would have the highest flexibility for implementation of activities because they

have: predictable outcomes, activities that can be

exchanged for each other and still produce the

same effects, and standards that are potentially well

connected between scales. However, this level of

flexibility is based on assumptions that a multiscale process of regional and subregional implementation analysis, watershed analysis, and monitoring will be implemented and maintained. It is

important to emphasize that this is an assumption

that was not apparent from the text in Chapter 3

of the preliminary draft EISs. Our modeling of

multi-scale relationships was not adequate to

determine the actual flexibility in management

activity levels but acceptable for the relative comparisons. We emphasize that the flexibility index

rating is only a relative comparison and cannot be

used to adjust activity levels until a multi-scale

implementation analysis is conducted as described

in the landscape assumptions. There is a risk with

Alternative 6 that the slower rate of implementation compared to Alternative 4 may result in the

loss of key elements (such as large, old trees to

wildfire or erosion from roads) which is not adequately reflected in the predictability variable.

Because of the adaptive management approach,

Alternative 6 was rated with a high index for flexibility and Alternative 4 was rated second highest.

Although Alternative 6 would have a lower level of

activities than Alternative 4 in the first decade, it

could produce a higher level of activities in the

long term due to the adaptive management

approach. Alternative 4 is considered to have more

rapid rates of activity implementation than Alternative 6, because of less emphasis on watershed

analysis and adaptive management. Compared to

the no action alternatives, the activity levels in

Alternatives 4 and 6 could be increased substantially based on the landscape assumptions discussed in this chapter, without changing the alternative's broad-scale trajectory or effects, including

implementation cost. We emphasize that at the

broad- and mid-scales it is not the amount of management activities by area that drives the effects, but

the design, rate of implementation, spatial pattern,

and timing that are the critical variables.

Alternatives 3 and 5 generally would have moderate predictability potential for exchanging activities, and for connection of standards between

scales. These two alternatives differ substantially

from Alternatives 4 and 6. Alternative 3 emphasizes local priorities and has a minimal change of

forest and resource plans, consequendy providing

less emphasis on Basin-wide priorities and consistency of management for the biophysical regime

and inherent disturbance processes. Alternative 5

emphasizes economic efficiency with active management in the productive lands, which (like Alternative 3) results in less emphasis on Basin-wide priorities and consistency of management for the biophysical regime and inherent disturbance processes.

Of particular concern, the spatial allocation of

restoration activities in Alternative 5 places low

emphasis on less productive lands which often have

the highest risks for unpredictable events and loss

of biophysical capability. Alternative 7 is a mix of a

reserve approach, which has low predictability, and

management similar to Alternative 3 on the nonreserve areas, which has moderate predictability.

Simulations Compared to

Alternative Management Activities

The simulated combined forest management

activities are within or very close to the range

given in Chapter 3 of both preliminary draft EISs

114 Landscape Ecology
for all alternatives. Alternative 2 is slightly low

because of lower than desired prescribed fire and

thinning, but harvest is slightly high so they could

be exchanged (table 2.22 and figures 2.25 and

2.26). Alternative 3 is a little high because of

higher levels of simulated prescribed fire than

desired. However, this can be exchanged to increase low levels of simulated thinning. Alternative 7 is slightly high for the EEIS area because of

higher simulated than desired harvest in the nonreserve areas, but this can be exchanged to in

crease low levels of simulated thinning.

Simulated rangeland combined-management

activities are within or very close to- the range

given in Chapter 3 of both preliminary draft EISs

for all alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 2 are low

for the UCRB area because of a low simulation of

prescribed fire and range vegetation improvements

(table 2.23 and figures 2.27 and 2.28). However,

this may be an actual effect when considering the

low level of current range management budgets,

compared to the expectations of the forest and

resource plans. Alternative 2 is somewhat low for

the UCRB for reasons similar to Alternative 1.

Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the EEIS area are

high because of higher levels of simulated prescribed fire than desired from the preliminary

draft EIS Chapter 3 activity levels. We feel the

preliminary draft EISs may have underestimated

these levels given the amount of decadent shrublands, and woodland and conifer encroachment,

in the EEIS area; and that the simulated level better reflects the DFCs and themes of Alternatives 3

and 4 than the Chapter 3 activity levels.

Relative to these critical variables, Alternatives 4

and 6 have the highest ability, Alternatives 3, 5 and

7 moderate ability, and Alternatives 1 and 2 the

lowest ability, to transition landscapes toward consistency with their biophysical regime and inherent

landscape disturbance processes; thus conserving or

improving ecosystem integrity. We emphasize again,

however, that at the broad- and mid-scales, it is not

the amount of management activities by area that

drives landscape response, but the design, rate of implementation, spatial pattern, and timing of treatments

within and across years that are the critical variables.

Table 2.22 — Forest vegetation management and prescribed fire for first decade.

EIS Area Alternative

Preliminary Draft

EIS, Minimum

Simulation

Activities

Preliminary Draft

EIS, Maximum

EEIS' 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

796,000

563,000

997,000

1,246,000

1,042,000

1,111,000

609,000

894,000

530,000

1,424,000

1,418,000

1,386,000

1,378,000

858,000

'EEIS = Eastside EIS area.

UCRB = Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

'Rounded to nearest thousand; includes harvest, thinning and prescribed fire (planned and unplanned ignitions).

1,071,000

757,000

1,350,000

1,688,000

1,411,000

1,500,000

820000

UCRB1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

926,000

608,000

1 ,083,000

1 ,369,000

1,118,000

1,082,000

717,000

994,000

536,000

1 ,733,000

1,672,000

1,132,000

1,427,000

730,000

1,254,000

825,000

1,467,000

1 ,850,000

1,512,000

1 ,467,000

972,000

Landscape Ecology 115
Eastside EIS Area

PDEIS_Min El Simulated Q PDEISJVlax

2,000,000

1,500,000

1 ,000,000

LL 500,000 -

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6

Alternative Management Disturbances for Forest land

Alt. 7

Figure 2.25 — Simulation compared to alternative management activities for BLM- and FS-administered forest land of the EEIS.

UCRB EIS Area

PDEIS_Min El Simulated Q PDEIS Max

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000-

500,000

Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Alternative Management Disturbances for Forest land

Figure 2.26 — Simulation compared to alternative management activities for BLM- and FS-administered forest land of the UCRB.

116 Landscape Ecology
Eastside EIS Area

PDEISJvlin H Simulated DPDEIS Max S Assumed

1,200,000

1,000,000 -

& 800,000 -

600,000 -

- 400,000 -

200,000 -

Alt. 1 Alt 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Alternative Management Disturbances for Rangeland

Figure 2.27 — Simulation compared ro alternative management activities for BLM- and FS-administered rangeland of the EEIS.

UCRB EIS Area

PDEIS_Min H Simulated D PDEIS_Max S Assumed

i,406,666

1 ,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

<j> 600,000

^ 400,000

LL.

200,000

Alt 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt 7

Alternative Management Disturbances for Rangeland

Figure 2.28 — Simulation compared to alternative management activities for BLM- and FS-administered rangeland of the UCRB.

Landscape Ecology 117
Table 2.23 — Rangeland improvements and prescribed fire activities for first decade.

EIS Area Alternative

Preliminary Draft

EIS, Minimum

Simulation

Activities

Preliminary

Draft EIS,

Maximum

Assumed'AMP

Revision/

Implementation

EEIS2 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

170,000

170,000

412,000

535,000

310,000

385,000

220,000

- Hectares3-

171,000

225,000

729,000

941,000

643,000

799,000

565,000

227,000

227,000

558,000

720,000

418,000

522,000

298,000

200,000

500,000

500,000

1,000,000

500,000

1,000,000

200,000

UCRB2 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

192,000

192,000

518,000

589,000

277,000

744,000

295,000

128,000

150,000

532,000

639,000

308,000

345,000

133,000

261,000

261,000

700,000

795,000

374,000

1,004,000

401 ,000

250,000

550,000

600,000

1,200,000

750,000

1 ,200,000

400,000

'Assumed for simulation purposes; not in preliminary draft EIS Chapter 3.

2EEIS = Eastside EIS area.

UCRB = Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

'Rounded to nearest thousand; includes structural and nonstructural range improvements plus prescribed fire (planned and unplanned ignitions).

118 Landscape Ecology