Summary and Synthesis of Landscape Findings

Results and Discussion

Two key management issues surface from our

evaluation of alternatives relative to management

of forest and rangelands on the BLM- and FSadministered lands of the Interior Columbia River

Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great

Basins, for the Eastside EIS assessment area and

the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS assessment

area. A discussion of these issues follows.

Forests

In forested environments, a large amount of contiguous mid- and late-serai, dense, multi-layer forest communities exist in both EIS areas. These

areas generally occur on the foothill and lower

relief mountains where road networks have been

relatively easy to develop. Consequently, much of

this condition occurs in areas of high road density

where the large, shade-intolerant, insect-, diseaseand fire-resistant species have been harvested over

the past 20 to 30 years. Historically, these areas

had a high component of surface fire (nonlethal)

disturbance regimes, which maintained relatively

open-canopy, late-serai, single-layer, old forests.

We find these areas to be highly correlated with

areas of high lightning ignition potential and

moderate-to-high urban/wildland interface. Many

of these areas are in critical fall big game range

where a common objective is to maintain multilayer, dense, forest cover for big game security.

The occurrence of high intensity crown fires of

large size has been common and will increase in

the future as the mid- and late-serai forest patches

grow into similar structures.

Substantial areas also occur with mid- and lateserai, dense, multi-layer forest communities in

areas of low road density where the large, shadeintolerant, insect- and disease- and fire-resistant

species have not been harvested. This typically

occurs in the steeper mountains where extensive

road networks have not been developed and the

environments are not as dry as in the roaded

areas. Historically, a mix of surface, mixed, and

crown (nonlethal, mixed, and lethal, respectively)

fire disturbance regimes maintained a patchwork

of: open-canopy, late-serai, single-layer, old

forests on the benches and ridges; late-serai,

multi-layer, old forests on the footslopes and

benches; and early- to mid-serai forests on the

slopes. These areas are typically correlated with

moderate to high lightning ignition potential and

low urban and wildland interface. The occurrence

of high intensity crown fires of large size has been

common in these areas and will increase in the

future.

The primary difference between the landscape

dynamics in the unroaded areas and the roaded

areas is that the forest vegetation has higher opportunity for relatively rapid shift to native patterns in

the unroaded areas because the large shade-intolerant trees are still present. Fires in unroaded areas

are not as severe as in the roaded areas because of

less surface fuel, and after fires at least some of the

large trees survive to produce seed that regenerates

the area. Many of the fires in the unroaded areas

produce a forest structure that is consistent with

the fire regime, while the fires in the roaded areas

commonly produce a forest structure that is not in

sync with the fire regime. Fires in the roaded

forests commonly are more intense, due to drier

conditions, wind zones on the foothill/valley interface, high surface-fuel loading, and dense stands.

The effects of these fires often cause serious erosion, nutrient loss, slumps and stream sediment

hazards, when combined with high road densities.

In modeling the alternatives we did not find an

alternative that substantially changed the trend of

these conditions. Alternatives 4 and 6 generally

reduce the growth of these conditions and the

amount of wildfire more than Alternatives 3, 5,

and 7, and more than Alternatives 1 and 2.

Within Alternatives 4 and 6, there is flexibility to

prioritize the activity levels to high risk subbasins

and subwatersheds using hierarchical analysis in

order to reverse these conditions.

Landscape Ecology 281
In the evaluation of management activities and

other disturbances found in the previous sections

on "Evaluation of Landscape Disturbances" and

"Vegetation Response and Disturbance Patterns,"

we found that the historical fire disturbance

regime generally disturbed about 30 percent of

the vegetation per decade. In comparing the alternatives to this historical disturbance level, we

found that the restoration alternatives were very

similar in amounts. The reader might conclude

that if the BLM and FS were to implement a similar level of disturbance as the historical system,

the result would be restoration of landscape patterns within a short period. This is not the case.

The current condition is the result of about 50

years of somewhat successful fire exclusion and

about 30 years of harvest techniques that did not

mimic landscape disturbance regimes. The landscape patterns are on a very different trajectory

than one consistent with the biophysical system

and inherent disturbance regime. Consequently,

to affect restoration at a large scale, the BLM and

FS would need to maintain a well-designed 30

percent disturbance level, and focus additional

restoration energy to reverse the changes that have

already occurred.

In general, the subbasins that have landscape

conditions with high departure from the biophysical regime also have aquatic conditions in

need of restoration. Priority for vegetation, road,

fuel and watershed restoration could be focused

on subbasins and subwatersheds that do not have

conflicts with remnant (stronghold) native fish

populations.

In considering the adaptive management approach

of Alternative 6, we would like to emphasize that

the slower rates of activities and need for technology development and research definitely apply to

the unroaded steeper mountain areas. There is

high risk to watershed capabilities from further

road development in these areas. In general, the

effects of wildfires in these areas are much lower

and do not result in the chronic sediment delivery

hazards exhibited in areas that have been roaded.

In contrast, the already roaded areas have high

potential for restoration action.

As the reader reviews the fire disturbance information in the "Management and Disturbances" section, we would like to emphasize that the amount

and intensity of fires in the roaded forests with

the conditions previously described may be substantially underestimated. There was not adequate

time in this evaluation to model the mid-scale

contagion effects of insect, disease, and stress mortality on forests, or the contagion effects of fire on

fire size and amount, and to extrapolate to the

broad scale. The amount of fire will likely be

much greater than projected and of larger average

size within the coming decades. Alternatives 4 and

6 have high potential to eventually turn these

conditions around. However, to accomplish substantial improvement of diese conditions within

the next 10 to 20 years, BLM and FS management would prioritize the high risk areas and

focus restoration energy in those subbasins and

subwatersheds, rather than evenly distribute

restoration energy across the forest and range cluster restoration emphasis areas.

Rangeland

In the range and dry forest potential vegetation

groups the amount of exotic herbland in the current period is underestimated. The probability of

increase of exotics for these different potential

vegetation groups within the alternative simulation models is also underestimated. Consequently,

it is likely that the evaluation of alternatives relative to response and effects of exotic herblands

reports a more positive situation than exists. The

integrated weed management strategy in Chapter

3 of the preliminary draft EISs is a very sound

strategy for rangelands. It is also applicable to

forests, but would require further analysis.

There is a large amount of contiguous exotic

herbs in both EIS areas. Much of this is along

roadsides and trails, around watering areas, and in

areas with historic excessive livestock grazing

effects. Much of the exotic herbs also appear to be

correlated with stream and river corridors. The

two areas of largest size are suspected to occur in

the Snake River Plains area of the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area, and in the south central

Landscape Ecology
Oregon area of the Eastside EIS area. These areas

are generally in the dry shrub potential vegetation

group, with low annual precipitation. In these

environments wildfires tend to increase the rate of

spread of the exotic herbs.

Given concern with potential underestimation of

exotic herb rates of spread and the results of the

simulations of the alternatives, we feel there is high

potential that there is no alternative that will

assure the recovery of rangelands in the dry environments. There is also high potential for continued spread of exotic herbs in the forest environments as a result of road disturbance and traditional soil disturbing harvest, fuel management, site

preparation, and stand improvement activities.

Alternatives 4 and 6 generally appear to stabilize or

possibly reduce the growth of these conditions and

the amount of wildfire more than Alternatives 3,

5, and 7, and much more than Alternatives 1 and

2. Within Alternatives 4 and 6, there is flexibility

to refocus the activity levels to a smaller group of

subbasins and subwatersheds to reverse these conditions in subbasins with the highest priority.

In general, the subbasins that have the most problems with exotic herbs do not have substantial

conflicts with aquatic conditions. Priority for

range management can be focused on range plan

revisions and implementation along with restoration activities to achieve objectives. For most of

the landscape objectives in the alternatives that

relate to range, stocking reductions alone do not

address the issues. Range plan revision and implementation, along with range improvements and

prescribed fire, to produce a system that is consistent with the biophysical system and inherent disturbance regime will best sustain landscape

integrity.

In considering the adaptive management approach

of Alternative 6, we emphasize that the need for

technology development and research applies to

recovery of rangelands in the dry shrub and dry

grass potential vegetation groups and in the riparian systems. There is high risk that our current

level of activities and types of control and containment treatments will not be adequate.

Summary of Response

Succession/Disturbance Regime

Evaluation of management activities and other

disturbances indicated that the historical disturbance regime generally disturbed about 30 percent

of the vegetation per decade. For a general summary of disturbance, we used a classification of

succession/disturbance regimes (Hann and others

1997) that is presented in table 2.49.

The short-cycle regime currently occurs at high

levels on roads and areas of exotic annual grasses

and other herbs. In the historical regime this short

cycle system generally only occurred in bank areas

of flood plains and earth flow patches. At this

scale the opportunity with Alternatives 4 and 6

appears to be to restore and mitigate roads and

contain the spread of exotics. With the current

technology there appears to be a fairly low probability of achieving substantial recovery of what has

already changed to domination by exotic herbs

without further advances in technology.

The predominant occurrence of the moderate

cycle regime was in the shrublands and on the

steeper, drier sites in the forest. Currently, there is

a low amount of this regime in comparison to the

historical regime. Much of the sagebrush zone has

converted to a short cycle regime and the forest

zone has converted to a long- or very-long-cycle

regime. Alternatives 4 and 6 have the highest

potential to reestablish these landscape level succession/disturbance regimes.

Through fire suppression, fire has been excluded

from many forest habitats that were moderate

cycle or maintenance systems. The ability to suppress wildfire is steadily declining as fuel loading

increases, the probability of human ignition

increases in urban/wildland interface zones, and

the probability of consecutive year drought

increases. Consequently, the fuel conditions will

eventually transition to a level consistent with the

biophysical regime, due to either wildfire or management treatments.

Landscape Ecology 283
Table 2.49 — Succession and disturbance regimes developed for broad-scale assessment.

Average Disturbance

Interval (years)

0)

Q.

O

Q]

CD

m

o

I

Regime (Code)

Intermediate

Mixed

1

/

Non-lethal

2

Lethal

Disturbance

Severity Description Examples

Cycling

Accelerated

Cycle (AC)

NA

3

5-50

1 + Moderate-High

30 - 300 Moderate

Long Cycle

(LC)

Moderate

Cycle (MC)

NA 101 -300 High

NA 5-100 Moderate

Succession is reinitiated by disturbances that are lethal

4

 to most or all

of the upper-layer and some or all of

the lower-layer vegetation.

Intermediate disturbances that accelerate growth of disturbance-adapted

species, often creating an irregular

fine-scale mosaic of patches of different vegetation structures. Eventually cycled by a lethal disturbance.

Successional cycle is long, with

reinitiation from seedlings and some

resprouting. Intermediate disturbances may happen but they have

minimal effects on composition,

structure, and density.

Successional cycle is moderately

long, with reinitiation from a mixture

of resprouting plants and seedlings.

Intermediate disturbances may happen but they have minimal effects on

composition, structure, and density.

Conifer pote

with non-leth

disease effe

susceptible s

species to a

with non-leth

ease, grazin

that open-up 

Conifer PVT

growing, sha

species that 

insect attack

effects that c

Shrub PVTs 

lethal burning

chaining, or i

25 years to r

shrub layer; c

with short-liv

intolerant, co

that dominate 

attacks, wind

that cycle the 

plain areas th

or shrub veg

beaver in ripa

conifer PVTs 

cycles the ve

by conifers, k

herb or shrub 
Table 2.49 (continued)

Average Disturbance

Interval (years)

Intermediate

Mixed

1

/ Disturbance

Regime (Code) Non-lethal

2

 Lethal Severity Description Examples

Retrogressive NA 10-50 Low Disturbances that reverse succes- Conifer PVT

Cycle (RC) sional direction to an earlier serai in a dense 

stage, typically an annual or biennial relatively litt

cycle of grazing stress insect/ insects, dise

pathogen mortality, drought mortality, lively are a 

or pollutant mortality. vegetation o

grazing that 

in relatively 

such that ov

complete ch

composition 

exotic plant

effectively t

ronment or 

tillage, or ro

Short Cycle NA 1-4 High Successional cycle is very short with Annual high 

(SC) a composition of new seedlings, adjacent to 

annuals, biennials, or weedy peren- agriculture; 

nial species. with annual 

grass and w

with high am

avalanche p

Very Long NA 301+ High Successional cycle is very long, with Conifer PVT

Cycle (VC) reinitiation primarily from seedlings. nance by s

Intermediate disturbances may hap- that succee

pen but they have minimal effects on species and 

composition, structure, and density. fires, insect 

lethal effec

vegetation.
Table 2.49 (continued)

0)

3

Q.

W

a

0)

5

1

Regime (Code)

Average Disturbance

Interval (years)

Intermediate

Mixed'/ Disturbance

Non-lethal

2

 Lethal Severity Description Examples

Maintenance 5-50 NA Low

Frequent

Maintenance

(FM)

5-25 NA Low

Less

Frequent

Maintenance

(GM)

26-50 NA Low

Irregular

Maintenance

(IM)

26-50 NA Low

Succession is maintained in one

structural stage by periodic disturbances that do not cycle the upperlayer vegetation but are lethal to

species in the lower layer that would

grow up into, and change the upper

layer.

Intermediate effects produce relatively uniform upper and lower layers of

vegetation with relatively short intervals between maintenance (M) disturbances.

Intermediate effects produce relatively uniform upper and lower layers of

vegetation with moderate intervals

between disturbances.

Intermediate effects produce relatively irregular upper layers of vegetation

and multiple lower layers.

Warm conifer 

insects, disea

selectively re

story species 

resistant spec

grassland, sh

with non-letha

disease, or g

the dominant 

Cooler conife

insects, disea

selectively rem

story species 

resistant spec

grassland, sh

with non-letha

disease, or gr

the dominant 

Wet conifer, b

with mixed fire

ing effects tha

patches of su

vegetative lay

of resistant sp

'Mixed disturbances maintain a salt and pepper, fine-scale mosaic within a patch by cycling clumps and gaps; mixed disturbances leave patches intact

tern of clumps and gaps; mixed disturbances can be lethal (maintaining scattered gaps or creating gaps); or non-lethal (creating gaps that are intermin

'Non-lethal disturbances do not cycle the upper layer of vegetation; non-lethal disturbances selectively thin susceptible plants in all layers of the patc

JNA = Not Applicable.

'Lethal disturbances cycle the upper layer of vegetation in the patch, and may cycle the lower layers.
The maintenance system was historically common

in grasslands, open woodlands, and park-like forests. There has been a substantial decline in this

regime from the historical system. Much of this system has converted to a long cycle regime via fire

exclusion, short cycle via exotics, or retrogression via

livestock grazing. Without substantial restoration

energy, this regime cannot be recovered. In general,

Alternatives 3, 4 and 6 are die only alternatives that

have the level of restoration activities to change the

amounts of this regime in a pattern consistent with

the biophysical system. In subbasins that have a

mosaic of forest, range, and riparian the native

regime fire interval is typically the same across all

three types of vegetation. Reduction of fine grass

fuels from summer livestock grazing often has a

substantial effect on mosaic burns in these types.

The acceleration regime was historically common

in forest potential vegetation groups. These types

of insect, disease, and fire disturbance thinned the

vegetation and accelerated the development of surviving trees into the late-serai stage. Much of this

affected area has shifted to a retrogression regime,

where the upper layer of vegetation becomes

stressed due to high density, and shifts to an earlier

serai stage via mortality of the upper layer.

The retrogression regime, which was not common

historically, is now common in the range potential

'Event type is a set of combined fire, weather and fuel conditions.

vegetation groups as a result of excessive livestock

grazing and invasion of exotic perennials. It is also

common in the mid- and late-serai forest where

stands are more susceptible to insect, disease, and

fire because of past harvest activities and fire

exclusion.

Projected fire, smoke, and associated conditions on

BLM- and FS-administered lands of the UCRB

and EEIS were compared by alternative (table

2.50). The general findings follow those in the sections on "Evaluation of Landscape Disturbances,"

"Terrestrial Communities," and "Vegetation

Response and Disturbances." Of particular importance in this evaluation is the high potential for

large wildfire events in the rural and wildland

interface areas of the Alternative 7 reserves. Given

the fuel conditions and the narrow west to east

width of many of the reserves, there is very high

potential for wildfires to be blown out of the

reserves by a wind event and onto private lands or

into the interface with urban or rural housing.

Modeling of fire-event size indicated that only the

four largest reserve areas (North Cascades, Bob

Marshal Complex, Selway-Bitterroot, Frank

Church River of No Return) would contain 10- to

20-year type wildfire or large unplanned prescribed

natural fire events,1 and that no areas were large

enough for 30- to 100-year type events.

Table 2.50 — Relative response by alternative of fire and smoke conditions on BLM- and FS-administered

lands.

Alternative

Item

Wildfire

Prescribed Fire

Spring Smoke

Summer Smoke

Fall Smoke

Large Wild Fire Events Rural / Wildland Interface

Risk of Escape Prescribed Fire

Fire Management Suppression Cost

Potential Accidents

1

M

L

H

M

L

M

M

M

M

2

M

L

H

M

L

H

H

H

H

3

M

M

H

M

L

M

M

M

M

4

L

H

M

M

M

L

L

L

L

5

M

M

H

M

L

M

M

M

M

6

L

M

M

M

M

L

L

L

L

7

M

L

L

H

H

H

H

H

H

L = Low; M = Moderate; H = High.

Landscape Ecology 287
Vegetation Change

Detailed information on vegetation response is

provided in the sections "Terrestrial Communities," and "Vegetation Response and Disturbance."

Detailed discussions of broad-scale and community vegetation structure and composition comparisons of alternatives are also presented (see "Vegetation Response and Disturbance"). A general

summary of fine-scale habitat responses compared

between alternatives based on interaction of alternative theme, DFCS, and standards is provided in

table 2.51.

The comparison of alternatives for snags, down

wood, forest riparian, range riparian, and down

woody debris in streams is based on the broadscale vegetation response and the prescription

assumptions concerning treatment of these finescale features. In general, Alternatives 4, 6, and to

some degree Alternative 7, would provide for the

highest improved trend of these fine-scale habitat

attributes.

Pattern emphasis may be the most important

emphasis of an alternative that is related to landscape integrity. Much of the current vegetation is

not in a location consistent with the landscape disturbance regime. For instance, many current lateserai multi-layer communities are located on steep

slopes with crown fire (lethal) regimes. Historically,

and based on the biophysical template of conditions, these structures should be located on moist

footslope landforms where creeping, spotting type

fires occur. The widespread effect of traditional

management, which has changed the juxtaposition

of patch structure, has created landscapes in very

high risk of large contiguous disturbance events.

When wildfire disturbance events happen during

consecutive drought years in these types of conditions, they often have high-severity effects on the

soil surface that cause high mortality to plants and

increase the hazard of hydrophobic conditions and

soil erosion. None of the alternatives address this

important issue to any degree. Based on the

theme, desired future conditions, and the standards (appendix I), it appears that Alternatives 4

Table 2.51 — Habitat responses within the Upper Columbia River Basin and Eastside EIS, by alternative

based on CRBSUM prescriptions.

Alternative

Habitat Variable 1

Snags

Down wood - upland

Forest riparian

Range riparian

Down wood - riparian

Pattern Emphasis

N(-)

N(-)

L(-)

LH

N(-)

N(-)

L(-)

L(-)

M(-)

M(0)

M(0)

M(-)

M(0)

M(-)

M(0)

M(-)

M(0)

M(0)

M(-)

M(0)

M(0)

LM(-)

Landscape level response across all ownerships of the Basin. Response relative to emphasis on conservation of existing habitats, and recruitment of

future habitats. The rating pertains to the aggregate of types of management (traditional or ecological) and disturbance treatments (prescriptions -

Rx).

H = High; M = Moderate; L = Low.

Trend, current to future.

0 stable projected trend, current to future.

+ upward projected trend, current to future,

downward projected trend, current to future.

Snags, down wood upland, and down wood - riparian based on lookup tables generated from subsample photo interpretation and plot data, and

modeled by prescription (Rx) type. Forest riparian and range riparian based on estimate from DEIS theme and DFCs and correlate trends with

upland types from the alternative CRBSUM simulations.

Pattern based on estimate from DEIS theme and DFCs.

288 Landscape Ecology
and 6 would have the highest likelihood of shifting

patterns of landscapes to be more consistent with

the system and inherent disturbance processes.

Consistency of Standards

Some of the standards were found to be inconsistent relative to ecological relationships. A brief

discussion follows with discussion relative to possible resolution.

Dead Standing and Down Wood Fuel, Soil

Productivity, and Habitats — In the alternatives,

the brief discussion on the amounts and size of

down wood fuel compared to down wood for

habitats or soil productivity, is inconsistent within

the same alternatives. To resolve these inconsistencies, a modeling approach could be used that links

relationships of standing-and-down wood with

fire, terrestrial habitats, aquatic habitats, and soil

productivity. In general, the literature on standing and down wood from these different perspectives is in conflict and we can easily understand

why the EIS team specialists from fire, wildlife,

aquatics, and soils were not able to resolve the

standards based on the published literature.

There are other single state/size default standards

in the preliminary draft EIS (such as riparian

buffers). Our evaluation of effects of alternatives

3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 was based on the assumption

that these standards would be revised to fit ecological relationships within the first decade.

Landscape Integrity Summary Ratings

In this chapter's introduction, we made some

assumptions about the type of management that

would provide the most positive trends for landscape integrity on public lands (table 2.52). These

estimates are in general agreement with the more

detailed findings that have already been presented.

An integrated rating of the ability of alternatives

to restore and sustain landscape integrity results in

Alternative 4 having the highest rating. Although

the adaptive management approach of Alternative

6 is very valuable in developing technology to

restore altered systems, the slower rate of restoraTable 2.52 — Summary comparison rating of how well various alternatives achieve the landscape

assumptions.

Alternative

Landscape Management

Landscape Approach Assumption

Successful Ability to Mimic Conditions/

Represent Processes

Hierarchical Assessment, Implementation,

Monitoring, and Evaluation

Prioritization and Integration of Activities

Concentration of Activities Temporally and Spatially

Road Management

Fire Management

Forest and Range Integrated Landscape

Management

Woodland PVG

Dry and Moist Forest PVGs

Cold Forest PVGs

Dry Grass, Dry Shrub, and Cool Shrub PVGs

Riparian PVGs

Alpine PVG

1

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

M

M

2

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

M

M

3

M

L

L

L

M

M

M

M

M

M

L

M

M

M

4

H

M

H

H

H

H

H

M

H

H

H

H

H

H

5

M

L

L

M

M

L

M

L

L

M

L

M

M

M

6

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

M

M

M

M

H

H

7

M

L

M

L

M

M

L

L

L

L

L

L

M

M

L = Low; M = Moderate; H = High.

Landscape Ecology 289
tion activities results in somewhat high risk of

wildfire in forests and of exotic plant invasion in

rangelands. Consequently, Alternative 6 is ranked

second amongst the alternatives, followed by

Alternatives 3, 7, and 5, respectively. Although the

reserve approach of Alternative 7 would be valuable to landscape integrity if actively managed for

native patterns, the traditional reserve management approach results in high risk to landscape

integrity. Because of the lack of a landscape

approach and restoration emphasis, Alternatives 1

and 2 are rated well below any of the action alternatives (3 through 7).

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 the preliminary draft

EISs 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 2.53 and figures 2.81

and 2.82). 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 increase 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 2.54 and figures 2.83 and 2.84). 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 EIS area 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

Table 2.53 — Forest vegetation management and prescribed fire for first decade.

EIS Area

EEIS1

UCRB1

Alternative

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Preliminary Draft

EIS, Minimum

796,000

563,000

997,000

1,246,000

1 ,042,000

1,111,000

609,000

926,000

608,000

1 ,083,000

1 ,369,000

1,118,000

1,082,000

717,000

Simulation

Activities

~ Hectares

894,000

530,000

1,424,000

1,418,000

1,386,000

1,378,000

858,000

994,000

536,000

1,733,000

1 ,672,000

1,132,000

1,427,000

730,000

Preliminary Draft

EIS, Maximum

107,1000

757,000

1,350,000

1,688,000

1,411,000

1,500,000

820,000

1,254,000

825,000

1,467,000

1,850,000

1,512,000

1,467,000

972,000

'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).

Landscape Ecology
Eastside EIS Area

PDEIS_Min 0 Simulated Q PDEIS_Max

2,000,000

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

Alternative Management Disturbances for Forest land

Figure 2.81 — Simulation compared with alternative management activities for BLM- and FS-administered forest land of the

EEIS.

UCRB EIS Area

PDEIS_Min 0 Simulated 0 PDEIS_Max

2,000,000

1,000,000 -

500,000 -

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

Alternative Management Disturbances for Forest land

Alt.7

Figure. 2.82 — Simulation compared with alternative management activities for BLM- and FS-administered forest land of the

UCRB.

Landscape Ecology 291
draft EIS Chapter 3 activity levels. We feel the

preliminary draft EISs 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, 7

and 5 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

activity 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.

Terrestrial Communities

We would recommend that any future analysis of

broad-scale communities as terrestrial habitats use

the physiognomic type groups stratified potential

vegetation group (PVG) or, for a coarser grouping,

by forest and rangeland. The changing nature of

lower montane, montane, subalpine and non-forest terrestrial communities in relation to existing

vegetation cover types with no tie to the biophysical environment is a substantial hindrance to this

analysis. Without the tie to the biophysical environment little inference can be made relative to

temperature, moisture, soils, terrain, or consistency

of the terrestrial communities with the biophysical

system and inherent succession and disturbance

processes.

Table 2.54 — Rangeland improvements and prescribed fire activities for first decade.

EIS Area Alternative

Preliminary Draft

EIS, Minimum

Simulation

Activities

Preliminary

Draft EIS

EIS, Maximum

Assumed' AMP

Revision/

Implementation

Hectares3

EEIS21

2

3

4

5

6

7

170,000

170,000

412,000

535,000

310,000

385,000

220,000

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.

'EEIS = 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).

Landscape Ecology
Eastside EIS Area

PDEIS_Min H Simulated Q PDEIS Max • Assumed

1,200,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt.l

Alternative Management Disturbances for Rangeland

Figure 2.83 — Simulation compared with alternative management activities for BLM- and FS-administered rangeland of the

EEIS.

UCRB EIS Area

PDEIS_Min H Simulated Q PDEIS_Max • Assumed

1,400,000

800,000

600,000

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

Alternative Management Disturbances for Rangeland

Alt.7

Figure 2.84 — Simulation compared with alternative management activities for BLM- and FS-administered rangeland of the

UCRB.

Landscape Ecology 293
Acknowledgments

We thank Jodi Clifford and acknowledge her outstanding effort in technically editing the landscape evaluation of alternatives. Thanks are also expressed to Ann Marie Walker for her excellent work in quality control of data, tables, and figures, and to Lisa Meabon for text.

Many thanks are expressed to the ICBEMP Spatial Team members in both Portland and Walla Walla. We

could not have synthesized the data and maps without their expertise and incredible commitment to production of quality, well-documented data summaries and maps.

In particular we express out thanks and acknowledge the ICBEMP team at the Intermountain Station Fire

Laboratory in Missoula, Montana for the incredible effort, within a very short time, of assimilating the 17

management prescriptions across all lands of the Basin, as well as the two historical range of variability

simulations.

We express our thanks to all those who worked on the landscape assessment since they provided the platform for this evaluation of alternatives as well as assisting in its evolution.

294 Landscape Ecology
References

Asher, J.E. 1991. Unpublished meeting notes

from numerous meetings held on Undesirable

Vegetation in various eastern Oregon and eastern Washington BLM districts and resource

areas. Unpublished manuscript. On file with:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service;

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land

Management; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar,

Walla Walla, Washington, 99362.

Asher, J.E. 1993a. Unpublished trip notes, observations, recommendations from a Grande

Ronde river trip, June 14-18, 1993. Unpublished manuscript. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla

Walla, Washington, 99362.

Asher, J.E. 1993b. Noxious weeds in eastern

Oregon. USDI-Bureau of Land Management,

Oregon State Office.Unpublished manuscript.

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

Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior,

Bureau of Land Management; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112

E. Poplar, Walla Walla, Washington, 99362.

Asher, J.E. 1994. Crushing the wilderness spirit:

alien plant invasions. Unpublished manuscript.

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

Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior,

Bureau of Land Management; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112

E. Poplar, Walla Walla, Washington, 99362.

Brandt, C.A., and W.H. Rickard. 1994. Alien taxa

in the North American shrub-steppe four

decades after cessation of livestock grazing and

cultivation agriculture. Biological Conservation

68:95-105.

Gravenmier, Rebecca; Wilson, Andrew;

Steffenson, John, (in press). Information system development and documentation. In:

Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, S. J., tech.

eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in

the Interior Columbia Basin including portions

of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech.

Rpt. PNW- GTR-XXXX. Portland, OR: U. S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station; 2.

(Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project: Scientific Assessment).

Hann, Wendel J.; Jones, Jeffrey L.; Karl, Michael

G. "Sherm" [and others], (in press). Landscape

dynamics of the Basin. In: Quigley, Thomas

M.; Arbelbide, S. J., tech. eds. An assessment

of ecosystem components in the Interior

Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath

and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rpt. PNW-GTRxxx. Portland, OR: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station; 1. (Quigley, Thomas M.,

tech. ed. The Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific

Assessment).

Hann, Wendel J.; Long, Donald G.; Menakis,

James P. [and others]. 1997. Landscape ecology

assessment and evaluation of alternatives data

analysis record. On file with: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department

of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA

99362.

Hessburg, RE; Smith, E.G.; Kreiter, S.D. [and

others]. 1996. Historical and current forest and

range landscapes in the interior Columbia

River basin and portions of the Klamath and

Great basins. Part I: Linking vegetation patterns and landscape vulnerability to potential

insect and pathogen disturbances. Draft report.

Landscape Ecology 295
On file with: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 112 East Poplar,

Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora

of the Pacific Northwest: an illustrated manual.

University of Washington Press, Seattle,

Washington.

Hunter, M.L. 1991. Coping with ignorance: the

coarse-filter strategy for maintaining biodiversity. In: Kohm, K.A., ed. Balancing on the brink

of extinction: the endangered species act and

lessons for the future. Washington, DC: Island

Press: 266-281.

Jenny, Hans. 1958. Role of the plant factor in the

pedogenic functions. Ecology. 39: 5-16.

Jensen, Mark; Goodman, Iris; Brewer, Ken [and

others], (in press). Biophysical environments of

the Basin. In: Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide,

S. J., tech. eds. An assessment of ecosystem

components in the Interior Columbia Basin

and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins.

Gen. Tech. Rpt. PNW-GTR-xxx. Portland,

OR: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; 1.

(Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project: Scientific Assessment).

Jones, Jeffrey L.; Hann, Wendel J. 1996. Compositional trends of broad-scale vegetation types

within the interior Columbia River basin. In:

Keane, Robert E.; Jones, Jeffrey L.; Riley,

Laurienne S.; Hann, Wendel J., tech. eds.

Compilation of administrative reports: multiscale landscape dynamics in the Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins.

[Irregular pagination]. On file with: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla

Walla, WA 99362.

Karl, M.G., S.G. Leonard, P.M. Rice, and J.

Rider. 1995. Noxious weeds in the Interior

Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath

and Great Basin: science assessment of selected

species. Unpublished report. On file with: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land

Management; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla,

Washington 99362.

Keane, Robert E.; Long, Donald G.; Menakis,

James P. [and others]. 1996. Simulating coursescale vegetation dynamics using the Columbia

River Basin Succession Model—CRBSUM.

Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-340. Ogden, UT:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Intermountain Research Station. 50 p.

Long, Donald G.; Peterson, William C.; Hann,

Wendel J. 1996. Development of management

prescriptions for modeling disturbance regimes

and succession in the interior Columbia River

basin. In: Keane, Robert E.; Jones, Jeffrey L.;

Riley, Laurienne S.; Hann, Wendel J., tech.

eds. Compilation of administrative reports:

multi-scale landscape dynamics in the Basin

and portions of the Klamath and Great basins.

[Irregular pagination]. On file with: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla

Walla, WA 99362.

Mack, R.N. 1986. Alien plant invasion into the

Intermountain West: a case history. In:

Mooney, H.A.; Drake, J.A. eds. Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii.

New York: Springer-Verlag. 191-213.

Major, Jack. 1951. A functional factorial approach

to plant ecology. Ecology. 32: 392-412.

Landscape Ecology
Marcot, Bruce; Castellano, Mike; Christy, John;

and others, (in press). Terrestrial Ecology of the

Basin. In: Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, S.

J., tech. eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and

portions of the Klamath and Great Basins.

Gen. Tech. Rpt. PNW-GTR-XXX. Portland,

OR: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; 2.

(Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The Interior

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project: Scientific Assessment).

Morgan, Penelope; Aplet, Gregory H.; Haufler,

Jonathan B. [and others]. 1994. Historical

range of variability: a useful tool for evaluating

ecosystem change. In: Sampson, Neil; Adams,

David L., eds. Assessing forest ecosystem health

in the inland west. New York: Haworth Press,

Inc.: 87-111.

Ottmar, Roger D.; Alvarado, Ernesto; Hessburg,

Paul F. [and others]. 1996. Historical and current forest and range landscapes in the interior

Columbia River basin and portions of the

Klamath and Great basins. Part II: Linking

vegetation patterns to potential smoke production and fire behavior. Draft report. On file

with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of

Land Management; Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar,

Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Pellant, M., and C.Hall. 1994. Distribution of

two exotic grasses on Intermountain rangelands: status in 1992. In: Monsen, S.B., and

S.G. Kitchen (compilers), Proceedings — ecology and management of annual rangelands.

1992 May 18-21. Boise, Idaho. General

Technical Report INT-GTR-313. Ogden,

Utah:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Research Station. 416

p. 109-112.

Piper, G.L., and E.M. Coombs. 1996. Rush skeletonweed. In: Rees, N.E; Quimby, PC., Jr.;

Piper, G.L. [and others], eds. Biological control

of weeds in the West. Bozeman, Montana:

Western Society of Weed Science, in cooperation with USDA Agricultural Research Service,

Montana Department of Agriculture, and

Montana State University.

Quigley, Thomas M.; Haynes, Richard W;

Graham, Russell T, tech. eds. 1996. An integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin and

portions of the Klamath and Great basins.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

303 pp. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed. The

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific assessment).

Rice, P.M., C.A. Lacey, J.R. Lacey, and R.

Johnson. 1994. Sulfur cinquefoil biology, ecology and management in pasture and rangeland.

EB 109. [place of publication unknown]:

Montana State University Extension Service.

Roche, C. 1991. Mediterranean sage (Salvia

aethiopis L.). Pacific Northwest Extension

Publication 381. [place of publication

unknown]: Oregon State University Extension

Service, Washington State University Cooperative Extension, University of Idaho Cooperative

Extension System, and United States

Department of Agriculture.

Roche, B.F., Jr. 1994. Diffuse knapweed, tumble

knapweed. In: R.L. Sheley (editor). The identification, distribution, impacts, biology and

management of noxious rangeland weeds. 129-

151. Unpublished report on file with: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla

Walla, Washington, 99362.

Landscape Ecology 29?
Sheley, R.L., ed. 1994. The identification, distribution, impacts, biology and management of

noxious rangeland weeds. Unpublished report

on file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior,

Bureau of Land Management; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112

E. Poplar, Walla Walla, Washington, 99362.

Tyser, R.W., and C.H. Key. 1988. Spotted knapweed in natural area fescue grasslands: an ecological assessment. Northwest Science 62:151-

160.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau

of Land Management. 1996. Spokane District

noxious weed control environmental assessment 1996. OR-130-06-01. Spokane, Washington: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of

Land Management, Spokane District Office.

White, P.S.; Pickett, S.T.A. 1985. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics. In: Pickett, S.T.A.;

White, P.S., eds. The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. San Diego:

Academic Press. 3-16.

Whitson, T.D. (editor), L.C. Burrill, S.A. Dewey,

D.W. Cudney, B.E. Nelson, R.D. Lee, and R.

Parker. 1991. Weeds of the west. Jackson,

Wyoming: Western Society of Weed Science, in

cooperation with the Western United States

Land Grant Universities Cooperative Extension

Services.

298 Landscape Ecology
Appendix 2-A

Potential Vegetation Groups

This appendix describes the landscape approach to managing potential vegetation groups (PVGs). It

includes brief statements about current conditions that serve as a basis for comparing a landscape management approach to traditional approaches. Current conditions of the Basin have been documented in

Landscape Dynamics of the Basin (Hann and others in press), Chapter 3 in the Assessment of Ecosystem

Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins (Quigley and

others, in press). Additional information about potential vegetation groups is provided by Hann and

others (1997).

Woodland Potential Vegetation Group

Through time, the woodland potential vegetation group would improve in integrity. Conditions related to

effects of fire exclusion, overgrazing, and introduction of exotic forbs and annual grasses would be prioritized for restoration. Overgrazing by livestock has generally resulted in the loss of fine fuels that historically carried fire and in soil disturbance, both of which increase the rates at which exotics spread and woody

species establish. Dominant changes that occurred between historical and current conditions were from

upland herb to upland shrub, and from early-serai forest/woodland to mid-serai woodland. Succession/disturbance regimes shifted from a mix of maintenance, cycling, and acceleration to dominance by cycling

and retrogression.

Over time, with improved inventory, remote sensing, and ecological modeling, there is a better understanding of the extent of woodland potential vegetation groups, and their juxtaposition in the mid- and

fine-scale landscape patterns of succession/disturbance regimes. The woodland PVG physiognomic types

are typically associated with site and landform conditions with a mix of maintenance and cycling succession/disturbance regimes. Areas with soils supportive of continuous fine fuels typically have fires at frequent intervals that maintain the upland herb physiognomic type, and cycle the upland shrub, early-serai

forest/woodland, or open canopy mid-serai woodland.

Areas that support old, late-serai, multi-layer woodlands are typically steep north aspects with very rocky

soils where fires are infrequent. In the broad-scale mapping, due to resolution error some of the dry grass,

dry shrub, and cool shrub potential vegetation groups contain inclusions of this type of woodland PVG.

Areas that support old, late-serai, single-layer woodlands typically have rock outcrops or shallow soils

where trees are not killed by fires in the intermingled shrub/grass areas capable of carrying fire. These trees

are often fire-scarred one to three times before they die. The woodland succession/disturbance relationships on the woodland potential vegetation groups are very different from that in the dry grass, dry shrub,

or cool shrub PVGs.

Through time, with the use of prescribed fire, flexible strategies on wildfire management, noncommercial

tree cutting, commercial harvest, and other treatments, the mix of physiognomic types shows a trend

toward the historical mix consistent with the biophysical template. Treatments are designed to restore areas

that have exotics and/or eroded soils with native or desirable non-native perennial herbs that can compete

with exotic weeds, provide soil protection, and represent native structures.

Landscape Ecology 299
For areas where a fine-scale understanding of the above relationships does not exist, a conservative

approach is taken relative to use of treatments that convert woodlands to herblands. Large, older trees are

saved. Areas where trees exhibit fire scars are treated as underburn (nonlethal) regimes and managed for

open mid- or late-serai, single-layer, physiognomic types.

Grazing systems are implemented to result in the dominance of native herbs, which have decreased under

cattle and sheep grazing. Typically, these grazing systems are of short duration and low to moderate utilization, with emphasis on higher utilization levels during the dormant seasons of the plants.

Management emphasizes avoiding both the introduction and spread of exotic plants and noxious weeds,

which are typically associated with overgrazing, roads, and other soil surface-disturbing activities.

Consequently, these soil-disturbing types of activities are adjusted or monitored to reduce the risk of introducing or spreading exotic plants and noxious weeds. Initial introductions are aggressively controlled to

avoid spread.

Seeding for wildfire rehabilitation is done only when necessary, either to protect soils or to compete with

potential introductions of exotic forbs or annual grasses. If deemed necessary, seeding is done with native

species if possible, non-native species that do not produce viable seed, or where necessary for restoration

desirable non-native species that have similar form and adaptations as the native species that have been lost.

Dry and Moist Forest Potential Vegetation Groups

Through time, the dry and moist forest potential vegetation groups improve in integrity. Current harvest

and road practices that are inconsistent with the biophysical disturbance regime and fire management

practices are modified to achieve this change in trend.

In the dry forest potential vegetation groups, there have been:

• Substantial declines in late-serai (old) forest, single-layer physiognomic types.

• Substantial increases in the mid-serai forest.

• Some increases in late-serai multi-layer forest.

• Substantial declines in herb and shrub physiognomic types.

• Substantial change from forests that are shade-intolerant and resistant to insects, diseases, and fires, to

forests that are shade-tolerant and susceptible to insects, diseases, and fires.

Dominant transitions from historical to current were:

• From late-serai, intolerant, single-layer forest to late-serai, tolerant, multi-layer forest.

• From late-serai, intolerant, single-layer forest to mid-serai intolerant forest.

• From mid-serai intolerant forest to late-serai tolerant multi-layer forest.

The biophysical template of the dry forest potential vegetation groups supports a succession/disturbance

regime that is a mixture of acceleration, maintenance, and cycling. The current succession/disturbance

regime has shifted to one dominated by cycling and retrogression. The moist forest potential vegetation

group has had substantial declines in both late-serai multi-layer and single-layer types, and substantial

increases in the mid-serai forest. Its biophysical template supports a succession/disturbance regime of

cycling, acceleration, and maintenance. Currently, this regime is dominated by retrogression and cycling.

3QO Landscape Ecology
For areas where a fine-scale understanding of the above relationships does not exist, a conservative

approach is taken relative to use of treatments that convert woodlands to herblands. Large, older trees are

saved. Areas where trees exhibit fire scars are treated as underburn (nonlethal) regimes and managed for

open mid- or late-serai, single-layer, physiognomic types.

Management activities addressing high risk fire/fuel conditions are prioritized to reduce these hazards

where BLM- and FS-administered lands are mingled with urban and rural developments that also contain

very hazardous fuel conditions. In general, management activities are designed to improve integrity and

produce associated resources and values. In the rural/wildland interface, harvest and prescribed fire are

used to maintain the stand structures, composition, fuels, and patch patterns in late-serai forest singlelayer, open low density mid-serai forest, or early-serai physiognomic types. These classes generally have low

potential for fires that crown, spread rapidly, and burn with high intensity. Fine grass fuels can be managed with grazing to reduce risk of rapid ignition and spread during the summer and early fall.

In dry and moist forests outside the rural/wildland interface zone where an emphasis is to manage for timber products, the biophysical template for underburning (nonlethal) and mixed regimes indicates that two

or three fire intervals can be skipped to accumulate wood biomass for harvest.

Harvest treatments with prescribed fire emphasize production of community structure and composition

similar to the biophysical template through:

• Removal of small diameter trees to allow selected trees to grow into the overstory to simulate acceleration

and maintenance events.

• Removal of some overstory trees to simulate cycling events.

• Retention of a small amount of shade-intolerant overstory trees to simulate cycling events that maintain

scattered large emergent trees.

In crown fire regimes, the biophysical template indicates that one or two fire intervals could be skipped to

accumulate moderate diameter trees in the overstory with scattered large residual trees. Harvest treatments

with prescribed fire emphasize removal of moderate diameter trees, while leaving the large residual shadeintolerant trees and selected smaller replacement shade-intolerant trees. Local fire management plans

address effective strategies in areas where risk of investment or loss of property is high, and alternate strategies in areas where risks are lower.

In dry and moist forests outside the rural/wildland interface zone where the emphasis is to manage for

maintenance of native patterns and processes, prescribed fire is used to represent the biophysical fire

regime. Where stand structures and fuel conditions are excessively high, techniques are employed to

reduce fire intensity. These techniques include using prescribed fire during cooler times of the year, pretreating with low intensity prescribed fire, and harvesting or thinning.

Management for dominant species in dry and moist forests generally includes species that are shade intolerant and resistant to mortality from low intensity fires. Progress is made in restoring western white pine

on suitable environments by regenerating with blister rust resistant stock.

Introduction and spread of exotic and noxious weeds are actively avoided. Seeding with exotic or native

grasses, forbs, and shrubs for wildfire rehabilitation is avoided unless necessary. When deemed necessary,

either to protect soils or to compete with potential introductions of exotic forbs or annual grasses, seeding is

done with native species if possible, non-native species that do not produce viable seed, or where necessary

for restoration desirable non-native species that have similar form and adaptations as the native species that

have been lost.

Landscape Ecology 301
Cold Forest

Through time, using a landscape approach, the cold forest would improve in integrity. The primary conditions that improve relate to outcomes where: fire exclusion has changed community structures and fuel

conditions; there has been a loss of whitebark pine to blister rust; and harvest and road practices are

inconsistent with the biophysical succession/disturbance regime.

In the cold forest potential vegetation group, there has been a substantial increase in the late-serai forest

multi-layer physiognomic type and a substantial decline in the early-serai forest. The succession/disturbance regime for the biophysical template is mixed cycling, acceleration, and maintenance. Currently, the

regime is dominated by retrogression, primarily related to insects and disease.

Methods are developed to use prescribed fire and harvest or thinning to represent the biophysical fire

regimes. Where emphasis is managing for timber products, one or two fire intervals could be skipped to

accumulate small diameter trees in the understory and to moderate closure of larger diameter overstory

trees. Other management activities are designed to improve integrity and produce associated resources and

values. Progress is made in restoring whitebark pine on suitable environments by providing suitable postfire ash environments and blister rust resistant seeds or stock.

Seeding of exotic or native grasses, forbs, and shrubs for wildfire rehabilitation is avoided unless necessary.

This type of seeding typically shortens the natural successional development of small native grasses and

forbs. When deemed necessary, seeding is done using native species where possible, non-native species that

do not produce viable seeds, or where necessary for restoration desirable non-native species that have similar form and adaptations as the native species that have been lost.

Dry Grass, Cool Shrub, and Dry Shrub Potential Vegetation Groups

Through time, using a landscape approach for management of the dry grass, cool shrub, and dry shrub

potential vegetation groups would improve integrity. The primary conditions that improve relate to outcomes addressing fire exclusion, overgrazing, and introduction of exotic forbs and annual grasses. Overgrazing by livestock has generally resulted in the loss of large decreaser' grasses and an increase of smaller

grasses, forbs, and exotic forbs and annual grasses. The combined effects of fire exclusion and excessive grazing have resulted in encroachment by woody tree species on some areas, conversion to dominance by noxious weeds and other exotics on other areas, and thickening and decadence of shrubs in remaining areas.

The dominant change that occurred in the dry grass and shrub potential vegetation groups, from historical to current conditions, was the increase in exotics. In the cool shrub potential vegetation groups, there

has also been a decline in the upland herb physiognomic type. The succession/disturbance regime for the

dry grass biophysical template is dominated by maintenance, while the dry shrub and cool shrub potential

vegetation groups are dominated by cycling. Currently, the dry grass and shrub potential vegetation groups

have either a much shorter cycle due to invasion of exotic annual grasses, or a much longer cycle due to

fire exclusion and excessive grazing. The cool shrub potential vegetation group generally has shifted to a

longer cycle in response to fire exclusion, grazing, and invasion of exotic perennials.

A better understanding of the extent of these types and their juxtaposition at the mid- and fine-scale and

landscape patterns of succession/disturbance regimes is developed over time through improved inventory,

remote sensing, and ecological modeling.

'A plant whose vigor and persistence decreases with grazing use.

302 Landscape Ecology
Through time, with the use of grazing systems, exotic weed control, prescribed fire, flexible strategies on

wildfire management, and noncommercial tree encroachment, the mix of physiognomic types is maintained consistent with the biophysical template. Treatments are designed to restore areas that have exotics

and eroded soils with desirable native or exotic perennial herbs that can compete with exotic weeds, provide soil protection, and represent native structures.

Implementation of grazing regimes in these systems reflects the types of grazing to which dominant

decreaser native herbs are adapted. Typically, grazing regimes are of short duration and low to moderate

utilization.

Both the introduction and the spread of exotic and noxious weeds in these potential vegetation groups are

actively avoided. Exotic and noxious weeds are typically associated with excessive grazing, roads, and other

soil surface-disturbing activities. Consequently, these types of activities are adjusted or monitored to

reduce the risk of introducing exotic or noxious weeds.

Seeding with exotic and native grasses, forbs, and shrubs for wildfire rehabilitation is avoided unless necessary. This type of seeding typically shortens the successional development of small native grasses and forbs.

When deemed necessary, seeding is done with native species where possible, non-native species that do not

produce viable seed, or where necessary for restoration of desirable non-native species that have similar

form and adaptations as the native species that have been lost.

Riparian Potential Vegetation Groups

Through time, using a landscape approach for management of the riparian potential vegetation groups

improves integrity. The riparian potential vegetation groups include the riparian shrub and riparian woodland, as mapped at the broad-scale; and the riparian herb, which can only be mapped at mid- and finescales.

The primary conditions that improve in riparian potential vegetation groups are outcomes relating to

excessive grazing by livestock, invasion by exotics, fire exclusion, and flooding disturbances. The assessment documented changes in dominance of perennial exotic grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees in all riparian

types.

A better understanding of the extent of the riparian potential vegetation groups, their physiognomic

types and juxtaposition at the mid- and fine-scales, and the associated landscape patterns of succession/

disturbance regimes is developed over time through improved inventory, remote sensing, and ecological

modeling.

Through time, with the use of improved livestock grazing practices, a watershed approach to design of

roads and vegetation management, road restoration in flood plains, prescribed fire, flexible strategies on

wildfire management, reintroduction of beavers, and other riparian/upland management strategies, the

mix of physiognomic types trends toward the mix consistent with the biophysical template. Restoration

treatments focus on areas with roads, exotics, compacted and eroded soils, and degraded stream channels,

within a watershed context.

Grazing regimes implemented in these systems reflect the types of grazing to which the dominant decreaser native trees, shrubs, and herbs are adapted. Typically, the grazing regimes used are of short duration and

low utilization.

Landscape Ecology 303
Both the introduction and spread of exotic species of trees, shrubs, and herbs, and noxious weeds in the

riparian potential vegetation groups are actively contained or controlled. Because exotics and noxious

weeds are typically associated with excessive grazing, roads, and other soil surface-disturbing activities,

these types of activities would be adjusted or monitored to reduce the risk of introducing exotic plants or

noxious weeds.

Seeding with exotic or native grasses, forbs, shrubs, or trees for wildfire rehabilitation is avoided unless

necessary as this type of seeding typically shortens the natural successional development of native earlyserai communities. When deemed necessary, seeding is done with native species when possible, nonnatives that do not produce seed, or where necessary for restoration desirable non-native species that have

similar form and adaptations as the native species that have been lost.

Alpine Potential Vegetation Group

The alpine potential vegetation group has generally not been identified as having widespread dysfunctional conditions in composition, structure, or succession/disturbance regimes. Localized problems from abandoned mines, roads, and historic grazing disturbance are restored through time.

Landscape Ecology
Appendix 2-B

Table 2-B.l. Prescription model characteristics for forest land Alternative 1, Eastside EIS area.

BLM/FS Forested Areas

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1 ,000)

Harvest (area treated)

Thin (area treated)

Prescribed Fire

Wildfire Hazard

Road Reductions

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodity Emphasis

Wildfire Suppression

Large Snag Conservation

Large Down Wood Conservation

Duff/Litter Cover

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

Wilderness-like

N6

24

1423.8

N

N

L

M

N/A

C

N

H

H

H

H

T

P

Other

N5

8

442.2

M

M

L

M

L

P

H

H

M

M

M

T

A

N6

1

48.9

N

N

L

M

L

P/C

N

H

H

H

H

T

P

N7

12

718.6

M

M

L

M

L

P/C

H

H

L

L

M

T

A

N8

56

3292.2

H

H

H

M

L

P

H

H

N

N

L

T

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = None

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Landscape Ecology
Table 2-B.2. Prescription model characteristics for forest land Alternative 2, Eastside EIS area.

BLM/FS Forested Areas

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Harvest (area treated)

Thin (area treated)

Prescribed Fire

Wildfire Hazard

Road Reductions

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodity Emphasis

Wildfire Suppression

Large Snag Conservation

Large Down Wood Conservation

Duff/Litter Cover

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

Wilderness-like

N6

24

1423.8

N

N

L

M

N/A

R/P

N/A

H

H

H

H

T

P

Other

N4

12

732.6

L

L

L

M

L

C

M

H

M

M

M

T

A

N5

45

2640

M

M

L

M

L

P/C

M

H

M

M

M

T

A

N6

7

435.6

N

N

L

M

L

C

N

H

H

H

H

T

P

N7

12

693.7

M

M

L

M

M

P/C

M

H

L

L

M

T

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Table 2-B.3. Prescription model characteristics for forest land Alternative 3, Eastside EIS area.

BLM/FS Forested Areas

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Harvest (area treated)

Thin (area treated)

Prescribed Fire

Wildfire Hazard

Road Reductions

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodity Emphasis

Wildfire Suppression

Large Snag Conservation

Large Down Wood Conservation

Duff/Litter Cover

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

Wilderness-like

A1

24

1394.3

N

N

H

L

N/A

C

N/A

L

H

H

H

E

M

Other

A1

1

65.8

N

N

H

L

L

C/R

M

M

H

H

H

E

M

A2

64

3816.3

M

H

H

L

L

R

M

M

H

H

H

E

M

A3

7

392.3

H

H

H

L

L

R/P

MU

H

M

M

H

E

M

N2

3

196.3

M

M

L

M

L

C/R

M

H

L

L

M

E

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

30& Landscape Ecology
Table 2-B.4. Prescription model characteristics for forest land Alternative 4, Eastside EIS area.

BLM/FS Forested Areas

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1 ,000)

Harvest (area treated)

Thin (area treated)

Prescribed Fire

Wildfire Hazard

Road Reductions

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodity Emphasis

Wildfire Suppression

Large Snag Conservation

Large Down Wood Conservation

Duff/Litter Cover

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

Wilderness-like

A1

24

1394.3

N

N

H

L

N/A

C

N/A

L

H

H

H

E

M

Other

A1

1

50.7

N

N

H

L

N/A

R

N/A

L

H

H

H

E

M

A2

71

4223.7

M

H

H

L

L

R

M

M

H

H

H

E

M

N2

3

196.3

M

M

L

M

L

R

M

H

L

L

M

E

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Table 2-B.5. Prescription model characteristics for forest land Alternative 5, Eastside EIS area.

BLM/FS Forested Areas

Wilderness-like

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Harvest (area treated)

Thin (area treated)

Prescribed Fire

Wildfire Hazard

Road Reduction

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodity Emphasis

Wildfire Suppression

Large Snag Conservation

Large Down Wood Conservation

Duff/Litter Cover

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

A1

21

1244.6

N

N

H

L

N/A

C

N/A

L

H

H

H

E

M

N1

3

179.2

N

N

L

M

N/A

C

N/A

L

H

H

H

E

M

Other

A1

2

97.3

N

N

H

L

L

R

L

H

H

H

H

E

M

A2

54

3178.4

M

H

H

L

L

R

M

M

H

H

H

E

M

A3

11

635.2

H

H

H

L

L

P

M

H

M

M

H

E

M

N2

7

440.8

M

M

L

M

L

R/P

M

H

L

L

M

E

A

N5

2

95.8

M

M

L

M

L

R/P

M

H

M

M

M

E

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Landscape Ecology 30?
Table 2-B.6. Prescription model characteristics for forest land Alternative 6, Eastside EIS area.

BLM/FS Forested Areas

Wilderness-like Other

Prescription

Percent of Area

Hectares (1 ,000)

Harvest (area treated)

Thin (area treated)

Prescribed Fire

Wildfire Hazard

Road Reductions

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodity Emphasis

Wildfire Suppression

Large Snag Conservation

Large Down Wood Conservation

Duff/Litter Cover

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

A1

20

1186.1

N

N

H

L

N/A

C

N/A

L

H

H

H

E

M

N1

4

237.7

N

N

L

M

N/A

C

N/A

L

H

H

H

E

M

A1

4

250.5

N

N

H

L

L

R

L

L

H

H

H

E

M

A2

66

3903.6

M

H

H

L

L

R

M

M

H

H

H

E

M

N1

2

105.6

N

N

L

M

L

R/C

M

H

H

H

H

E

M

N5

3

196.3

M

M

L

M

L

R/C

M

H

M

M

M

E

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P - Prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Table 2-B.7. Prescription model characteristics for forest land Alternative 7, Eastside EIS area.

BLM/FS Forested Areas

Wilderness-like Other

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Harvest (area treated)

Thin (area treated)

Prescribed Fire

Wildfire Hazard

Road Reductions

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodity Emphasis

Wildfire Suppression

Large Snag Conservation

Large Down Wood Conservation

Duff/Litter Cover

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

A1

5

308.5

N

N

H

L

N/A

C

N/A

L

H

H

H

E

M

N1

4

218.7

N

N

L

M

N/A

C

N/A

L

H

H

H

E

M

P1

15

896.6

N

N

N

H

N/A

C

N/A

L

L

L

L

T

P

A2

30

1747.9

M

H

H

L

L

C/R

M

M

H

H

H

E

M

A3

3

172.2

H

H

H

L

L

C/R

M

H

M

M

H

E

M

N1

5

313.4

N

N

L

M

L

C/R

M

H

H

H

H

E

M

N4

22

1324

L

L

L

M

L"

C/R

M

H

M

M

M

E

A

P1

14

836

N

N

N

H

N/A

C/R

N/A

L

L

L

L

T

P

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

308 Landscape Ecology
Table 2-B.8. Prescription model characteristics for rangeland Alternative 1, Eastside EIS area.

BLM/FS Rangeland Areas

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1 ,000)

Grazing Effects

Upland Treatments

Riparian Treatments

Woodland Treatments

Prescribed Fire

Noxious Weed Management

Wildfire Hazard

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodities

Wildfire Suppression

Prescription Types

Allocation Method

Wilderness-like

C1

24

1376.7

L

N

N

N

L

L

M

C

N

H

T

P

Other

N2

72

4228.3

M

L

L

M

L

L

M

P

H

H

T

A

N3

4

221.2

M

L

L

M

L

L

H

P

H

H

T

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Table 2-B.9. Prescription model characteristics for rangeland Alternative 2, Eastside EIS area.

BLM/FS Rangeland Areas

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1 ,000)

Grazing Effects

Upland Treatments

Riparian Treatments

Woodland Treatments

Prescribed Fire

Noxious Weed Management

Wildfire Hazard

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodities

Wildfire Suppression

Prescription Types

Allocation Method

Wilderness-like

N1

24

1376.7

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

C

N

M

T

M

Other

N1

1

34.6

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

P/C

L

M

T

M

N5

74

4316.2

L

L

L

M

L

L

M

P/C

L

M

T

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Landscape Ecology 30S
Table 2-B.10. Prescription model characteristics for rangeland Alternative 3, Eastside EIS area.

BLM/FS Rangeland Areas

Wilderness-like Other

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1 ,000)

Grazing Effects

Upland Treatments

Riparian Treatments

Woodland Treatments

Prescribed Fire

Noxious Weed Management

Wildfire Hazard

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodities

Wildfire Suppression

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

N1

24

1376.7

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

C

N

H

E

M

A2

16

915.6

L

H

H

H

H

H

L

C/R

M

H

E

M

A3

60

3531.4

L

M

M

H

M

M

L

R/P

M

H

E

M

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Table 2-B.l 1. Prescription model characteristics for rangeland Alternative 4, Eastside EIS area.

BLM/FS Rangeland Areas

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1 ,000)

Grazing Effects

Upland Treatments

Riparian Treatments

Woodland Treatments

Prescribed Fire

Noxious Weed Management

Wildfire Hazard

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodities

Wildfire Suppression

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

Wilderness-like

N1

24

1376.7

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

C

N

H

E

M

Other

A2

76

4465.5

L

H

H

H

H

H

L

R

M

H

E

M

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional: E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

310 Landscape Ecology
Table 2-B.12. Prescription model characteristics for rangeland Alternative 5, Eastside EIS area.

BLM/FS Rangeland Areas

Prescription

Percent of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Grazing Effects

Upland Treatments

Riparian Treatments

Woodland Treatments

Prescribed Fire

Noxious Weed Management

Wildfire Hazard

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodities

Wildfire Suppression

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

Wilderness-like

N1

24

1376.7

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

C

N

H

E

M

Other

A2

3

194.9

L

H

H

H

H

H

L

R/P

M

H

E

M

A3

60

3476.3

L

M

M

H

M

M

L

R/P

M

H

E

M

N2

13

776.1

M

L

L

M

L

L

M

P

H

H

E

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Table 2-B.13. Prescription model characteristics for rangeland Alternative 6, Eastside EIS area.

BLM/FS Rangeland Areas

Wilderness-like Other

Prescription

Percent of Area

Hectares (1 ,000)

Grazing Effects

Upland Treatments

Riparian Treatments

Woodland Treatments

Prescribed Fire

Noxious Weed Management

Wildfire Hazard

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodities

Wildfire Suppression

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

N1

24

1376.7

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

C

N

H

E

M

A2

61

3546.3

L

H

H

H

H

H

L

R

M

H

E

M

A3

3

154.7

L

M

M

H

M

M

L

C/R

M

H

E

M

N1

2

141.5

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

C

L

H

E

M

N4

11

623.6

L

L

L

M

L

L

M

C

L

H

E

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional: E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Landscape Ecology
Table 2-B.14. Prescription model characteristics for rangeland, Alternative 7, Eastside EIS area.

BLM/FS Rangeland Areas

Wilderness-like Other

Prescription

Percent of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Grazing Effects

Upland Treatments

Riparian Treatments

Woodland Treatments

Prescribed Fire

Noxious Weed Management

Wildfire Hazard

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodities

Wildfire Suppression

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

N1

14

829.3

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

C

N

L

E

M

P1

9

547.4

L

N

N

N

N

L

H

C

N

L

T

P

A2

43

2513.9

L

H

H

H

H

H

L

C/R

M

H

E

M

N1

9

512.7

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

C

L

H

E

M

N4

11

653.2

L

L

L

M

L

L

M

C

L

H

E

A

N5

10

605.1

L

L

L

M

L

L

M

C

L

H

E

A

P1

3

181.2

L

N

N

N

N

L

H

C

N

L

T

P

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Table 2-B.15. Prescription model characteristics for forest land Alternative 1, Upper Columbia River Basin

EIS area

BLM/FS Forested Areas

Wilderness-like Other

Prescription

Percent of Area

Hectares (1 ,000)

Harvest (area treated)

Thin (area treated)

Prescribed Fire

Wildfire Hazard

Road Reductions

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodity Emphasis

Wildfire Suppression

Large Snag Conservation

Large Down Wood Conservation

Duff/Litter Cover

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

N6

28

2861 .5

N

N

L

M

N/A

C

N/A

H

H

H

H

T

P

N4

22

2258.1

L

L

L

M

L

P

M

H

M

M

M

T

A

N5

5

551.2

M

M

L

M

L

P

H

H

M

M

M

T

A

N6

4

374.4

N

N

L

M

L

C/P

L

H

H

H

H

T

P

N8

41

4180.1

H

H

L

M

L

P

H

H

N

N

M

T

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

312 Landscape Ecology
Table 2-B.16. Prescription model characteristics for forest land Alternative 2, Upper Columbia River Basin

EIS area.

BLM/FS Forested Areas

Wilderness-like Other

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Harvest (area treated)

Thin (area treated)

Prescribed Fire

Wildfire Hazard

Road Reductions

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodity Emphasis

Wildfire Suppression

Large Snag Conservation

Large Down Wood Conservation

Duff/Litter Cover

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

N6

28

2861 .5

N

N

L

M

N/A

C

N/A

H

H

H

H

T

P

N4

49

4960.2

L

L

L

M

L

P/C

M

H

M

M

M

T

A

N6

24

2403.6

N

N

L

M

L

C

L

H

H

H

H

T

P

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Table 2-B.17. Prescription model characteristics for forest land Alternative 3, Upper Columbia River Basin

EIS area.

BLM/FS Forested Areas

Wilderness-like Other

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Harvest (area treated)

Thin (area treated)

Prescribed Fire

Wildfire Hazard

Road Reductions

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodity Emphasis

Wildfire Suppression

Large Snag Conservation

Large Down Wood Conservation

Duff/Litter Cover

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

A1

28

2811.7

N

N

H

L

N/A

C

N/A

H

H

H

H

E

M

A1

7

702.2

N

N

H

L

L

C/R

M

H

H

H

H

E

M

A2

43

4375.9

M

H

H

L

L

R

M

H

H

H

H

E

M

A3

21

2114.1

H

H

H

L

L

R/P

M

H

M

M

H

E

M

N2

1

84.7

M

M

L

M

L

R/P

M

H

L

L

M

E

A

N5

1

61.9

M

M

L

M

L

R/P

M

H

M

M

M

E

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Landscape Ecology 313
Table 2-B.18. Prescription model characteristics for forest land Alternative 4, Upper Columbia River Basin

EIS area.

BLM/FS Forested Areas

Wilderness-like Other

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Harvest (area treated)

Thin (area treated)

Prescribed Fire

Wildfire Hazard

Road Reductions

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodity Emphasis

Wildfire Suppression

Large Snag Conservation

Large Down Wood Conservation

Duff/Litter Cover

Treatment Type

Allocation Method

A1

28

2811.7

N

N

H

L

N/A

C

N/A

H

H

H

H

E

M

A1

4

449.5

N

N

H

L

L

C/R

L

H

H

H

H

E

M

A2

66

6742.7

M

H

H

L

L

R

M

H

H

H

H

E

M

N2

1

84.7

M

M

L

M

L

C/R

M

H

L

L

M

E

A

N5

1

61.9

M

M

L

M

L

C/R

M

H

M

M

M

E

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high: N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T~ traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Table 2-B.19. Prescription model characteristics for forest land Alternative 5, Upper Columbia River Basin

EIS area.

BLM/FS Forested Areas

Wilderness-like Other

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Harvest (area treated)

Thin (area treated)

Prescribed Fire

Wildfire Hazard

Road Reductions

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodity Emphasis

Wildfire Suppression

Large Snag Conservation

Large Down Wood Conservation

Duff/Litter Cover

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

A1

17

1783.4

N

N

H

L

N/A

C

N/A

H

H

H

H

E

M

N1

11

1078.1

N

N

L

M

N/A

C

N/A

H

H

H

H

E

M

A1

8

780.7

N

N

H

L

N/A

C/R

M

H

H

H

H

E

M

A2

26

2692.2

M

H

H

L

L

C/R

M

H

H

H

H

E

M

A3

24

2459.7

H

H

H

L

L

R/P

M

H

M

M

H

E

M

N1

5

513.2

N

N

L

M

L

R/C

M

H

H

H

H

E

M

N2

4

407.3

M

M

L

M

L

R/P

M

H

L

L

M

E

A

N5

5

485.7

M

M

L

M

L

R/P

M

H

M

M

M

E

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

314 Landscape Ecology
Table 2-B.20. Prescription model characteristics for forest land Alternative 6, Upper Columbia River

Basin EIS area

BLM/FS Forested Areas

Wilderness-like Other

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Harvest (area treated)

Thin (area treated)

Prescribed Fire

Wildfire Hazard

Road Reductions

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodity Emphasis

Wildfire Suppression

Large Snag Conservation

Large Down Wood Conservation

Duff/Litter Cover

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

A1

17

1722

N

N

H

L

N/A

C

N/A

H

H

H

H

E

M

N1

11

1139.5

N

N

L

M

N/A

C

N/A

H

H

H

H

E

M

A1

13

1360.5

N

N

H

L

L

C/R

M

H

H

H

H

E

M

A2

49

5039.4

M

H

H

L

L

R

M

H

H

H

H

E

M

N1

6

567.5

N

N

L

M

L

R

M

H

H

H

H

E

M

N4

3

311.7

L

L

L

M

L

R

M

H

M

M

M

E

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Table 2-B.21. Prescription model characteristics for forest land Alternative 7, Upper Columbia River Basin

EIS area.

BLM/FS Forested Areas

Wilderness-like Other

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1 ,000)

Harvest (area treated)

Thin (area treated)

Prescribed Fire

Wildfire Hazard

Road Reductions

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodity Emphasis

Wildfire Suppression

Large Snag Conservation

Large Down Wood Conservation

Duff/Litter Cover

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

A1

3

317.8

N

N

H

L

N/A

C

N/A

L

H

H

H

E

M

N1

4

354.9

N

N

L

M

N/A

C

N/A

L

H

H

H

E

M

P1

21

2188.8

N

N

N

H

N/A

C

N/A

L

L

L

L

T

P

A1

4

445.3

N

N

H

L

L

C/R

M

M

H

H

H

E

M

A2

22

2217.4

M

H

H

L

L

C/R

M

M

H

H

H

E

M

N1

16

1637.8

N

N

L

M

L

C/R

M

H

H

H

H

E

M

N4

20

2080.7

L

L

L

M

L

C/R

M

H

M

M

M

E

A

P1

9

891.7

N

N

N

H

N/A

C/R

N/A

L

L

L

L

T

P

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription; T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Landscape Ecology 31S
Table 2-B.22. Prescription model characteristics for rangeland Alternative 1, Upper Columbia River Basin

EIS area.

BLM/FS Rangeland Areas

Wilderness-like Other

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1 ,000)

Grazing Effects

Upland Treatments

Riparian Treatments

Woodland Treatments

Prescribed Fire

Noxious Weed Management

Wildfire Hazard

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodities

Wildfire Suppression

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

C1

15

1017.8

L

N

N

N

L

L

M

C

N

H

T

P

N2

75

5081 .7

M

L

L

M

L

L

M

P

H

H

T

A

N3

10

646.7

M

L

L

M

L

L

H

P

H

H

T

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Table 2-B.23. Prescription model characteristics for rangeland Alternative 2, Upper Columbia River Basin

EIS area.

BLM/FS Rangeland Areas

Wilderness-like Other

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Grazing Effects

Upland Treatments

Riparian Treatments

Woodland Treatments

Prescribed Fire

Noxious Weed Management

Wildfire Hazard

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodities

Wildfire Suppression

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

N1

15

1017.8

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

C

N

M

T

M

N1

1

63.2

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

P/C

L

M

T

M

N4

10

663.9

L

L

L

M

L

L

M

P/C

L

H

T

A

N5

74

5008.5

L

L

L

M

L

L

M

P/C

L

M

T

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Landscape Ecology
Table 2-B.24. Prescription model characteristics for rangeland Alternative 3, Upper Columbia River Basin

EIS area.

BLM/FS Rangeland Areas

Prescription

Percent of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Grazing Effects

Upland Treatments

Riparian Treatments

Woodland Treatments

Prescribed Fire

Noxious Weed Management

Wildfire Hazard

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodities

Wildfire Suppression

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

Wilderness-like

N1

15

1017.8

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

C

N

H

E

M

Other

A2

55

3683.2

L

H

H

H

H

H

L

C/R

M

H

E

M

A3

30

2023.1

L

M

M

H

M

M

L

R/P

M

H

E

M

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high: N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Table 2-B.25. Prescription model characteristics for rangeland Alternative 4, Upper Columbia River Basin

EIS area.

BLM/FS Rangeland Areas

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Grazing Effects

Upland Treatments

Riparian Treatments

Woodland Treatments

Prescribed Fire

Noxious Weed Management

Wildfire Hazard

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodities

Wildfire Suppression

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

Wilderness-like

N1

15

1017.8

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

C

N

H

E

M

Other

A2

85

5713.1

L

H

H

H

H

H

L

R

M

H

E

M

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Landscape Ecology 31?
Table 2-B.26. Prescription model characteristics for rangeland Alternative 5, Upper Columbia River Basin

EIS area.

BLM/FS Rangeland Areas

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Grazing Effects

Upland Treatments

Riparian Treatments

Woodland Treatments

Prescribed Fire

Noxious Weed Management

Wildfire Hazard

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodities

Wildfire Suppression

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

Wilderness-like

N1

15

1017.8

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

C

N

H

E

M

Other

A2

4

298.8

L

H

H

H

H

H

L

R/P

M

H

E

M

A3

30

2018.8

L

M

M

H

M

M

L

R/P

M

H

E

M

N2

51

3410.8

M

L

L

M

L

L

M

P

H

H

E

A

Hectare » 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Table 2-B.27. Prescription model characteristics for rangeland Alternative 6, Upper Columbia River Basin

EIS area.

BLM/FS Rangeland Areas

Prescription (Rx)

Prescription of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Grazing Effects

Upland Treatments

Riparian Treatments

Woodland Treatments

Prescribed Fire

Noxious Weed Management

Wildfire Hazard

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodities

Wildfire Suppression

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

Wilderness-like

N1

15

1017.8

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

C

N

H

E

M

Other

A2

30

2045.2

L

H

H

H

H

H

L

R

M

H

E

M

A3

5

320.4

L

M

M

H

M

M

L

C/R

M

H

E

M

N1

13

903

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

C

L

H

E

M

N4

37

2467

L

L

L

M

L

L

M

C

L

H

E

A

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

318 Landscape Ecology
Table 2-B.28. Prescription model characteristics for rangeland Alternative 7, Upper Columbia River Basin

EIS area.

BLM/FS Rangeland Areas

Wilderness-like Other

Prescription (Rx)

Percent of Area

Hectares (1,000)

Grazing Effects

Upland Treatments

Riparian Treatments

Woodland Treatments

Prescribed Fire

Noxious Weed Management

Wildfire Hazard

Aquatic/Riparian Emphasis

Commodities

Wildfire Suppression

Prescription Type

Allocation Method

N1

5

304.3

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

C

N

L

E

M

P1

11

713.5

L

N

N

N

N

L

H

C

N

L

T

P

A2

15

1015

L

H

H

H

H

H

L

C/R

M

H

E

M

N1

34

2313.9

L

L

L

N

L

L

M

C

L

H

E

M

N4

10

680.7

L

L

L

M

L

L

M

C

L

H

E

A

N5

17

1170.8

L

L

L

M

L

L

M

C

L

H

E

A

P1

8

553.5

L

N

N

N

N

L

H

C

N

L

E

P

Hectare = 2.47 acres

L = low; M = moderate; H = high; N = none

Emphasis: C = conserve; R = restore; P = produce

Prescription: T = traditional; E = ecological

Allocation: P = prescription; A = area; M = multi-scale

N/A = not applicable

Landscape Ecology 319
Landscape Ecology
Appendix 2-C

Management Emphasis1 Categories

A. Ecosystem Management Emphasis Categories

Conservation (C) — "planned management to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect."

A conservation emphasis assumes that the area of assessment has a dominant landscape component

that is functioning relatively well as a native or naturalized system and is producing associated

human needs and values within the capabilities of the system. These landscapes generally have moderate to high ecological integrity and socioeconomic resiliency. Integrity is based on the wholeness

of elements and relationships of the primary ecological systems (geologic, geomorphic, climatic,

hydrologic, carbon-nutrient, food web, evolutionary, and toxins). There may be inclusions (less than

20% of the area) with other emphases.

*The geologic, geomorphic, pedogenic, climatic, hydrologic, and carbon-nutrient systems are

functioning similar to the native (HRV) system, and are shifting in a resilient manner to current

and potential future climate change and geologic events. Resilient change in response to climate

change or geologic events would mean shifts in land forms (geomorphic), soil development

(pedogenic), water flow or transpiration (hydrologic), and vegetation types (carbon-nutrient)

that are in sync with the changes in climate and the geologic events (for example, erosion rates

would not be excessive or forest soils would not be developing on grassland soils as climates

changed to warmer conditions).

*Terrestrial and aquatic systems (species and habitats) have a relatively complete array of native

diversity. This does not mean that the composition is equivalent to native (HRV). However, the

opportunity to manage for systems somewhat similar to native (HRV) should be available.

A conservation emphasis assumes that relatively low management activity energy is needed for

active restoration of terrestrial, aquatic, hydrologic, carbon-nutrient and pedogenic systems because

their current and future trends are relatively stable in response to disturbance and human effects.

A conservation emphasis assumes that human values and needs will flow from management systems

that are designed to simulate the changes and disturbances that would occur within or relatively

close to native (HRV) patterns.

A conservation emphasis assumes that a coarse-filter strategy of managing landscape patterns of succession/disturbance regimes similar to HRV will conserve and recover most native species diversity.

Stronghold or relic populations of threatened, endangered, candidate, or sensitive species may need

short-term protection from disturbance of habitat that would occur in an HRV regime in order to

expand the population to adjacent habitats.

'The strategy of conserve, restore and produce as a basis for ecosystem management was developed by Jeff Blackwood and other

Project staff, based on the concepts in "Forest Service Ethics and Course to the Future" by Jack Ward Thomas, and coordinated

with BLM leadership.

Landscape Ecology 321
Restoration (R) — "to bring back to a former or original condition, pattern, or process."

A restoration emphasis assumes that the area of assessment has a dominant landscape component

that is not functioning well as a native, naturalized, or non-native system and/or in the production

of human needs and values within the capability of the system. Ecological integrity is usually low

and socioeconomic resiliency is low or at risk. There may be inclusions (less than 20% of the area)

of other emphases.

*The geologic, geomorphic, pedogenic, climatic, hydrologic, and carbon-nutrient systems are

not functioning similar to the native (HRV) system, and are not resilient to current and potential future disturbance, climate change and geologic events.

*Terrestrial and aquatic systems (species and habitats) are not functioning like native systems.

Generally the composition and structure will be well outside of native (HRV). There may be

permanent alteration to biophysical potentials.

A restoration emphasis assumes that moderate management activity energy is needed for active

restoration of terrestrial, aquatic, hydrologic, carbon-nutrient, and/or pedogenic systems because

their current and future trends are unstable in response to disturbance and human effects.

Productivity may be at risk as well as increased risk of erratic disturbance events.

A restoration emphasis assumes that human values and needs will not flow from managed systems

unless there is active restoration to shift composition, structure, and disturbance to a system that

would be more consistent with native (HRV) patterns. It is likely that altered biophysical systems

cannot be managed for consistency with native (HRV) patterns because cause-and effect responses

have changed. These systems will require a different type of management to provide for resiliency

and predictable response to disturbance, while conserving productivity and native diversity. Some

processes and functions may be similar to native (HRV), while others may be different in order to

account for the altered causes and effects.

A restoration emphasis assumes that a coarse-filter strategy of managing landscape patterns of succession/disturbance regimes similar to native (HRV) will not conserve and recover native species

diversity. Active restoration of "lost" functions and species may recover the landscapes to a functioning condition that can then be managed with a conservation or production strategy. Stronghold or

relic populations of threatened, endangered, candidate, or sensitive species will need protection

from disturbance of habitat that would occur in or outside the native (HRV) regime in order to

expand the population to adjacent habitats.

Production (P) — "output of a commodity, value, or need."

A production emphasis assumes that the area of assessment has a dominant landscape component

that is functioning relatively well as a native, naturalized or non-native system in association with

production of human needs, commodities, and values. Ecological integrity is usually moderate to

high, as is socioeconomic resiliency. In some cases ecological integrity may be low and substantial

mitigation is needed in order maintain biophysical potentials and avoid catastrophic disturbance.

There may be inclusions (less than 20% of the area) of other emphases.

*The geologic, geomorphic, pedogenic, climatic, hydrologic, and carbon-nutrient systems may

or may not be functioning similar to the native (HRV) system. However these systems are shifting in a resilient manner to current and potential future climate change and geologic events.

322 Landscape Ecology
Resilient change in response to climate change or geologic events would mean shirts in land

forms (geomorphic), soil development (pedogenic), water flow or transpiration (hydrologic), and

vegetation types (carbon-nutrient) that are in sync with the changes in climate and the geologic

events (for example, erosion rates would not be excessive or forest soils would not be developing

on grassland soils as climates changed to warmer conditions) such that they would not affect the

capacity to produce human commodities, values, and needs.

""Terrestrial and aquatic systems (species and habitats) may or may not function like native systems. Generally the composition and structure will be well outside of HRV and there may be

permanent alteration to biophysical potentials. However the departure from native (HRV) and

alteration of biophysical potentials does not affect the capacity to sustain human commodities,

values, and needs. The risks to productivity, current native diversity, and human values and

needs caused by departure from native (HRV) system processes are relatively low in these systems, or high risks can be mitigated with increased management activity.

A production emphasis assumes that relatively high management activity is needed for active production of human commodities, values, and needs, while conserving the productive capacity and

current native diversity of the terrestrial, aquatic, hydrologic, carbon-nutrient, and/or pedogenic systems.

A production emphasis assumes that human commodities, values, and needs, will flow from management systems with mitigation to conserve current native composition, structure, and disturbance. The systems may not be consistent with native (HRV) patterns but they are managed consistently with biophysical potentials, not against internal system disturbance trends. This will enhance

the ability of the system to achieve multiple emphases of production, conservation, and restoration.

It is likely that altered biophysical systems cannot be managed for consistency with native (HRV)

because cause-and-effect responses have changed. These systems will require a different type of management to conserve productivity and provide for resiliency and predictable response to disturbance.

Active mitigation will be needed to conserve current native diversity. Some processes and functions

may be similar to native (HRV), while others may be different in order to account for altered causes

and effects. Some systems may need to be artificially supported to maintain or enhance production

emphasis.

A production emphasis assumes that a coarse-filter strategy of managing landscape patterns of succession/disturbance regimes similar to native (HRV) or with mitigation will conserve the current

native species diversity. Active restoration of "lost" functions and species may occur in association

with some production activities to recover landscapes to a more native functioning condition that

will more efficiently achieve production objectives. Stronghold or relic populations of threatened,

endangered, candidate, or sensitive species will need protection from disturbance of habitat or

migration corridors that would occur in order to expand the population to adjacent habitats.

Restoration/Conservation (RC) — dominant component of the area is a landscape strategy for restoration and conversion to conservation. The objective is to rapidly restore the area because of its adjacency

to an area with a conservation strategy, that has an objective for expansion.

Restoration/Production (RP) — dominant component of the area is in a landscape strategy for

restoration, while producing at reduced levels. This strategy is designed to restore the area in order to

achieve a long-term strategy of sustainable production.

Landscape Ecology 323
Conservation/Production (CP) — dominant component of the area is a landscape strategy for conservation, but with considerable opportunities for production of human commodities and values while

maintaining ecological processes. This strategy is designed to conserve the area while producing sustainable commodities and values.

Mixed (MM) — the various conservation, restoration, and production strategies are mixed within the

assessment area to achieve proper functioning systems with multiple ecosystem management objectives

for conservation, restoration, and production. This strategy is common for larger landscapes, subregions, and regions.

B. Traditional Management Emphasis Categories

Traditional Commodity (TC) — "output of a commodity, value, or need."

A traditional commodity emphasis assumes that the area of assessment has a dominant landscape

component that is managed for traditional production of human needs, commodities, and values.

Emphasis is on the multiple, but relatively independent management of various resources (fire protection, timber, forage, recreation, wildlife, fisheries, and water) for sustained yield of the resource.

*The geologic, geomorphic, pedogenic, climatic, hydrologic, and carbon-nutrient systems are

typically not functioning similar to the native (HRV) system. These systems are typically not

responding in a resilient manner to current and potential future climate change and geologic

events.

*Terrestrial and aquatic systems (species and habitats) generally are not functioning as native systems. Generally the composition and structure will be well outside of HRV and there may be

high risk or actual permanent alteration to biophysical potentials. The departure from HRV and

alteration of biophysical potentials often result in reduced production or risk to production of

human commodities, values, and needs. Attempts to mitigate for loss of system capabilities,

reduced native diversity, and increasing risk of species extinctions typically are unsuccessful or

require very high investments of management activities.

A traditional commodity emphasis assumes that relatively high management activity energy is needed for active production of human commodities, values, and needs with substantial emphasis on

protection to conserve current native diversity of the terrestrial, aquatic, hydrologic, carbon-nutrient, and/or pedogenic systems. Energy invested in commodities and protection of systems is often

precluded by disturbance events.

A traditional commodity emphasis assumes that human commodities, values and needs will flow

from management systems that are often in conflict with ecological relationships and landscape limitations. Mitigation is typically used to conserve current native composition, structure, and disturbance, but these efforts are often unsuccessful because of conflicts with ecological relationships and

landscape limitations. Most systems will need to be artificially supported to maintain commodity

production, but the long-term outcome is typically a loss of commodity production capability.

A traditional commodity production emphasis assumes that a single species approach for recovery

of threatened, endangered, candidate, or sensitive species is used to conserve current native species

diversity. Stronghold or relic populations of threatened, endangered, candidate, or sensitive species

may be protected from human disturbance of habitats. However, these habitats may be at high risk

to system disturbances as well as in conflict with other species habitats.

324 Landscape Ecology
Traditional Reserve (TR) — "protection of current native habitats, aesthetic values, and roadless recreation values."

A traditional reserve emphasis assumes that the area of assessment has a dominant landscape component that is managed for protection of current native habitats, aesthetic values, and roadless recreation values. Emphasis is on multiple, but relatively independent management of various resources

(fire protection, forage, roadless recreation, wilderness, wildlife, fisheries, and water) for sustained

yield of the resource.

*The geologic, geomorphic, pedogenic, climatic, hydrologic, and carbon-nutrient systems are

typically not functioning similar to the native (HRV) system. These systems are typically not

shifting in a resilient manner to current and potential future climate change and geologic events.

*Terrestrial and aquatic systems (species and habitats) may be functioning to some extent as

native systems. Generally the composition and structure will be well outside of HRV and there

may be low to moderate risk of permanent alteration to biophysical potentials. The departure

from HRV often results in moderate risk of severe disturbance and potential loss of aesthetic values, native diversity, and biophysical potential. Attempts to mitigate for loss of system capabilities, reduced native diversity, and increasing risk of species extinctions typically are unsuccessful

because of the high cost of investments and lack of funds for this type of land use management.

A traditional reserve emphasis assumes that low management activity energy is needed for management of human values and needs. However, substantial emphasis is required for protection to control disturbance and conserve current native diversity of the terrestrial and aquatic systems.

A traditional reserve emphasis assumes that human values and needs will flow from management

systems that are in conflict with ecological relationships and landscape limitations. Mitigation is

typically used to conserve current native composition, structure, and disturbance, but these efforts

are often unsuccessful because of conflicts with disturbance relationships and landscape limitations.

Most systems will need to be artificially managed to control disturbance and provide protection to

current conditions. The long-term outcome is typically a loss of native diversity and system

capability.

A traditional reserve emphasis assumes that the protection of areas from disturbance and roads will

protect native species and habitats. A single species approach for recovery of threatened, endangered, candidate, or sensitive species is used to conserve current native species diversity. Stronghold

or relic populations of threatened, endangered, candidate, or sensitive species may be protected

from human disturbance of habitats. However, these habitats may be at high risk to system disturbances as well as in conflict with other species habitats.

Traditional Mixed (TM) — mixed traditional commodity production is a mosaic with protection of

current native habitats, aesthetic values, and roadless recreation values, where none of the types of management predominate in the area.

Landscape Ecology 325
Landscape Ecology
Appendix 2-D. Total hectares disturbed during the first decade.

Management Alternatives

Area Management Class 12345

Forest - Harvest

EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

EEIS BLM/FS Other 615700 357700 424200 419200 438100 

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

UCRB BLM/FS Other 572300 250400 390000 324000 392500 

Forest-Thinning

EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

EEIS BLM/FS Other 158600 77200 117600 116600 114200 

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

UCRB BLM/FS Other 264600 91200 159300 162600 162300 

Forest - Prescribed Fire

EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 24700 24700 163700 163700 156600 

EEIS BLM/FS Other 95900 70200 718900 719900 677200 

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 77600 77600 377200 377200 283900 

UCRB BLM/FS Other 77600 117200 805200 809200 692900 

Forest -Wildfire

EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 101300 101300 71200 71200 75100 

EEIS BLM/FS Other 361600 380700 259700 261300 269000 

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 194600 194600 142400 142400 156000 

UCRB BLM/FS Other 404700 433300 294300 292600 318100 

Range - Exotics

EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 4800 2000 2000 2000 2000 

EEIS BLM/FS Other 31700 147600 14900 17100 18500 

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 3000 2900 2900 2900 2900 

UCRB BLM/FS Other 85500 109800 43200 45900 65000 

Range - Prescribed Fire

EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0 9000 9000 9000 9000 

EEIS BLM/FS Other 51400 45900 336000 384400 330900 

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0 4900 4900 4900 4900 

UCRB BLM/FS Other 27400 23500 112500 122200 48400 

Range - Range Improvement

EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

EEIS BLM/FS Other 20600 20700 83600 148000 53300 

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0 100 100 100 100 

UCRB BLM/FS Other 11800 11200 139200 213200 55000 
Appendi

x 2-D (continued).

CD3Q

.

V) O0) T30>Og^ I

Management

Area Management Class

12

Alternatives

3 45

Range - Grazing Effects

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

Range -Wildfire

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

Natural

Other

Natural

Other

Natural

Other

Natural

Other

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

297100

3800500

47800

2231300

101300

361600

194600

404700

298300

2573100

49000

1504200

101300

380700

194600

433300

298300

3711000

49000

2448800

71200

259700

142400

294300

298300

4238000

49000

2613700

71200

261300

142400

292600

298300

3726600

49000

2242600

75100

269000

156000

318100

3

1
0)

O

CD

T3

CD

mo

o

8to

Appendix 2-E. Total hectares per decade disturbed during the long term (50 to 100

Management

Area

Forest - Harvest

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

Management Class

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Processes

Processes

1

0

551770

612280

0

527780

418970

2

0

325260

660970

0

230880

434950

years) .

Alternatives

3 4

20

399400

612280

0

374770

418970

0

391840

612280

0

341930

418970

5

0

400830

612280

0

368860

418970

Forest - Thinning

Forest

Forest

Range

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

- Prescribed

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

-Wildfire

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

- Exotics

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Fire

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

0

229270

296970

0

285830

223980

26980

116350

760

81800

87460

2300

109180

357860

495590

214210

427770

339870

7410

43770

285590

3200

80910

125020

0

111550

304390

0

93930

224970

26980

97980

157370

81800

117180

64620

109180

377060

486280

214210

472640

334540

4720

122430

285590

3390

95410

125020

20

141390

296970

0

137710

223980

161620

770950

760

361030

830690

2300

73010

234700

495590

143460

301660

339870

4720

17720

285590

3390

50040

125020

0

142710

296970

0

138510

223980

161620

772280

760

361030

831530

2300

73030

235460

495590

143460

304430

339870

4720

23080

285590

3390

55660

125020

0

138680

296970

0

151230

223980

155130

731480

760

278820

704150

2300

76270

243670

495590

165200

333060

339870

4720

21680

285590

3390

62250

125020
Appendix 2-E (continued).

0)

^

Q.

CO

O

0)

I

Management

Area Management Class

Range

Range

Range

Range

1 2

Alternatives

3 4 5 

- Prescribed Fire

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

30

35660

202300

0

23550

159300

3240

31300

202300

1090

20530

159300

3240

166580

202300

1090

63190

159300

3240

171690

202300

1090

64420

159300

3240

164040

202300

1090

34740

159300

- Range Improvement

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

- Grazing

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

-Wildfire

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Effects

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

0

35050

210100

0

16640

75850

695820

3624220

3459780

79210

2341200

2068230

99650

521100

713480

77130

699260

360740

10

38080

210100

10

16730

75850

655320

2439530

3459780

71200

1479500

2068230

115280

759440

713480

84540

772380

360740

10

57870

210100

10

73460

75850

655320

3397550

3459780

71200

2421140

2068230

115280

308240

713480

84540

389500

360740

10

75310

210100

10

85780

75850

655320

3722150

3459780

71200

2617720

2068230

115280

300880

713480

84540

386750

360740

10

46980

210100

10

36200

75850

655320

3470740

3459780

71200

2367560

2068230

115280

340850

713480

84540

522580

360740

2
Appendix 2-F. Total hectares disturbed for the first decade by ERU.

Management Management Alternative

ERU NAME Area Class 1 2 3 4 5 

Forest - Harvest

BLUE MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

BLUE MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Other 153,600 86,300 118,800 118,800 119,200 

BLUE MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

BLUE MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 2,400 600 2,100 2,300 2,000 

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Other 0 100 100 100 100 

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 199,400 59,700 137,800 142,200 112,200 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

COLUMBIA PLATEAU EEIS BLM/FS Other 50,100 27,300 33,400 33,400 34,600 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

COLUMBIA PLATEAU UCRB BLM/FS Other 9,400 2,800 4,300 4,300 4,500 

LOWER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

LOWER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Other 144,000 61,100 98,600 61,800 104,500 

NORTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

NORTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Other 53,700 15,700 36,200 35,400 32,400 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Other 65,100 45,600 30,500 27,100 43,700 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 166,400 107,600 106,700 72,200 130,400 

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN EEIS BLM/FS Other 65,700 43,400 35,500 35,500 35,500 

OWYHEE UPLANDS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

OWYHEE UPLANDS EEIS BLM/FS Other 900 1,200 900 900 900 

OWYHEE UPLANDS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

OWYHEE UPLANDS UCRB BLM/FS Other 1,600 300 1,300 1,300 1,300 

SNAKE HEADWATERS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

SNAKE HEADWATERS UCRB BLM/FS Other 5,100 700 2,600 3,300 3,000 

SOUTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

SOUTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Other 83,800 57,100 53,600 52,800 56,500 

UPPER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 00000

UPPER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Other 42,600 17,200 36,100 36,100 34,000 
Appendix 2-F (continued).

Management Management Alternative

ERU NAME Area Class 1 2 3 4 

UPPER KLAMATH EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

UPPER KLAMATH EEIS BLM/FS Other 142,800 81,000 115,200 115,200 

UPPER SNAKE UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

UPPER SNAKE UCRB BLM/FS Other 1,400 400 500 500 

Forest-Thinning

BLUE MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

BLUE MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Other 64,200 31,000 41,000 41,100 

BLUE MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

BLUE MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 1,700 200 500 500 

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Other 0 0 100 100 

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 76,200 20,500 59,500 62,800 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

COLUMBIA PLATEAU EEIS BLM/FS Other 14,700 5,800 10,100 10,400 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

COLUMBIA PLATEAU UCRB BLM/FS Other 6,700 1,200 3,000 3,000 

LOWER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

LOWER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Other 89,900 30,000 56,600 56,900 

NORTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

NORTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Other 19,200 4,200 19,500 19,300 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Other 15,700 8,200 14,900 13,300 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 50,500 25,100 22,200 21,800 

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN EEIS BLM/FS Other 11,000 5,400 9,400 9,400 

OWYHEE UPLANDS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

OWYHEE UPLANDS EEIS BLM/FS Other 100 100 100 100 

OWYHEE UPLANDS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

OWYHEE UPLANDS UCRB BLM/FS Other 1,900 400 700 700 

SNAKE HEADWATERS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

SNAKE HEADWATERS UCRB BLM/FS Other 6,100 1,100 1,700 1,800 

SOUTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000
Appendix 2-F (continued).

Management Management Alternative

ERU NAME Area Class 1 2 3 4 

SOUTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Other 15,400 12,000 11,300 11,700 

UPPER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

UPPER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Other 30,900 12,700 14,900 14,900 

UPPER KLAMATH EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

UPPER KLAMATH EEIS BLM/FS Other 18,300 10,500 11,200 11,200 

UPPER SNAKE UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

UPPER SNAKE UCRB BLM/FS Other 700 0 200 200 

Forest - Prescribed Fire

BLUE MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 8,700 8,700 60,200 60,200 

BLUE MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Other 12,300 9,500 151,400 150,900 1

BLUE MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 100 100 0 0 

BLUE MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 0 0 2,300 2,000 

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 300 300 1,300 1,300 

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Other 0 0 0 0 

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 44,100 44,100 272,900 272,900 2

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 42,500 63,300 394,400 395,100 3

COLUMBIA PLATEAU EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 400 400 1,200 1,200 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU EEIS BLM/FS Other 7,000 6,200 37,500 37,300 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0 0 100 100 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU UCRB BLM/FS Other 900 400 3,500 3,500 

LOWER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 4,600 4,600 16,900 16,900 

LOWER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Other 11,300 15,600 138,400 136,100 1

NORTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 8,800 8,800 26,100 26,100 

NORTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Other 4,500 7,000 47,200 47,100 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 1,600 1,600 6,200 6,200 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Other 2,700 5,300 48,400 47,200 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 21,200 21,200 65,600 65,600 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 15,900 21,200 171,000 175,700 1

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 600 600 20,000 20,000 

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN EEIS BLM/FS Other 12,400 9,000 84,000 84,000 

OWYHEE UPLANDS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

OWYHEE UPLANDS EEIS BLM/FS Other 0 0 100 100 

OWYHEE UPLANDS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

OWYHEE UPLANDS UCRB BLM/FS Other 100 100 200 200 
Appendix 2-F (continued).

Management Management Alternative

ERU NAME Area Class 1 2 3 4 

SNAKE HEADWATERS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0 0 400 400 

SNAKE HEADWATERS UCRB BLM/FS Other 4,100 3,400 19,500 20,700 

SOUTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 2,100 2,100 9,100 9,100 

SOUTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Other 11,500 8,300 78,200 81,200 

UPPER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 7,600 7,600 21,300 21,300 

UPPER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Other 2,700 13,100 75,500 75,500 

UPPER KLAMATH EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 2,200 2,200 39,600 39,600 

UPPER KLAMATH EEIS BLM/FS Other 45,500 24,900 272,100 272,100 2

UPPER SNAKE UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

UPPER SNAKE UCRB BLM/FS Other 100 100 400 400 

Forest-Wildfire

BLUE MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 33,200 33,200 26,200 26,200 

BLUE MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Other 112,100 109,600 83,200 83,100 

BLUE MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 200 200 100 100 

BLUE MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 3,300 2,300 2,200 2,100 

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 500 500 200 200 

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Other 0000

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 137,600 137,600 99,100 99,100 1

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 208,200 230,200 151,100 149,900 1

COLUMBIA PLATEAU EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 1,500 1,500 1,300 1,300 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU EEIS BLM/FS Other 25,900 26,500 19,400 19,400 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 500 500 600 600 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU UCRB BLM/FS Other 3,800 3,500 2,900 2,900 

LOWER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 8,500 8,500 6,000 6,000 

LOWER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Other 58,100 59,800 40,600 38,100 

NORTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 33,400 33,400 20,500 20,500 

NORTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Other 58,300 59,900 39,900 41,600 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 3,800 3,800 3,100 3,100 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Other 25,400 32,700 18,900 19,200 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 29,200 29,200 22,000 22,000 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 65,200 64,600 47,500 50,100 

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 4,400 4,400 2,700 2,700 

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN EEIS BLM/FS Other 28,900 27,800 24,900 24,900 

OWYHEE UPLANDS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000
Appendix 2-F (continued).

Q.

w

o

0)

mo

o^

I

Management Management

ERU NAME Area Class

OWYHEE UPLANDS

OWYHEE UPLANDS

OWYHEE UPLANDS

SNAKE HEADWATERS

SNAKE HEADWATERS

SOUTHERN CASCADES

SOUTHERN CASCADES

UPPER CLARK FORK

UPPER CLARK FORK

UPPER KLAMATH

UPPER KLAMATH

UPPER SNAKE

UPPER SNAKE

Range - Exotics

BLUE MOUNTAINS

BLUE MOUNTAINS

BLUE MOUNTAINS

BLUE MOUNTAINS

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS

COLUMBIA PLATEAU

COLUMBIA PLATEAU

COLUMBIA PLATEAU

COLUMBIA PLATEAU

LOWER CLARK FORK

LOWER CLARK FORK

NORTHERN CASCADES

NORTHERN CASCADES

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN

OWYHEE UPLANDS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Alternativ

1

1,400

3,500

3,000

500

9,600

1 1 ,900

41 ,400

14,600

52,000

12,600

68,200

0

1,500

500

4,300

100

1,200

0

500

20,500

400

4,300

0

800

0

0

100

600

100

0

0

2,000

8,400

1,700

2

1,700

3,500

4,000

500

10,800

11,900

47,900

14,600

57,200

12,600

74,600

0

900

400

5,000

0

200

0

900

3,700

100

10,900

100

100

0

0

0

100

100

0

0

1,000

87,700

500

3

1,500

1,700

2,500

300

7,400

8,600

28,600

12,500

38,000

8,600

43,300

100

2,100

400

2,600

0

900

0

900

10,900

100

2,100

100

100

0

0

0

900

100

0

100

1,000

3,100

500

4

1,500

1,700

2,500

300

6,900

8,600

28,300

12,500

38,000

8,600

43,300

100

2,100

400

2,800

0

1,300

0

900

10,800

100

2,200

100

400

0

0

0

900

100

0

100

1,000

3,500

500
Appendix 2-F (continued).

0)

a

</>

o

0)

T3

0>

o

o

Management Management

ERU NAME Area Class

OWYHEE UPLANDS

OWYHEE UPLANDS

OWYHEE UPLANDS

SNAKE HEADWATERS

SNAKE HEADWATERS

SOUTHERN CASCADES

SOUTHERN CASCADES

UPPER CLARK FORK

UPPER CLARK FORK

UPPER KLAMATH

UPPER KLAMATH

UPPER SNAKE

UPPER SNAKE

Range - Prescribed Fire

BLUE MOUNTAINS

BLUE MOUNTAINS

BLUE MOUNTAINS

BLUE MOUNTAINS

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS

COLUMBIA PLATEAU

COLUMBIA PLATEAU

COLUMBIA PLATEAU

COLUMBIA PLATEAU

LOWER CLARK FORK

LOWER CLARK FORK

NORTHERN CASCADES

NORTHERN CASCADES

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS

NORTHERN GLACIATED

'MOUNTAINS

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN

OWYHEE UPLANDS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Alternativ

1

12,300

2,300

52,200

0

500

0

600

0

700

100

1,100

100

9,600

100

0

2,200

0

100

0

0

2,900

0

33,600

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

0

5,600

0

2

43,600

1,900

67,200

0

100

0

100

0

100

0

100

0

38,400

0

100

1,800

0

0

0

400

2,300

5,700

33,900

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1,600

4,200

0

3

5,600

1,900

27,400

0

600

0

100

0

200

0

400

0

3,000

•0

100

16,200

0

100

0

400

23,700

5,700

244,600

0

300

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1,600

30,700

0

4

7,400

1,900

29,500

0

400

0

100

0

200

0

100

0

3,200

0

100

16,800

0

100

0

400

24,700

5,700

284,900

0

300

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1,600

34,600

0
Appendix 2-F (continued).

£D

3

Q.

to

O

£D

T3

05

m

O

Management Management

ERU NAME Area Class

OWYHEE UPLANDS

OWYHEE UPLANDS

OWYHEE UPLANDS

SNAKE HEADWATERS

SNAKE HEADWATERS

SOUTHERN CASCADES

SOUTHERN CASCADES

UPPER CLARK FORK

UPPER CLARK FORK

UPPER KLAMATH

UPPER KLAMATH

UPPER SNAKE

UPPER SNAKE

Range - Improvement

BLUE MOUNTAINS

BLUE MOUNTAINS

BLUE MOUNTAINS

BLUE MOUNTAINS

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS

COLUMBIA PLATEAU

COLUMBIA PLATEAU

COLUMBIA PLATEAU

COLUMBIA PLATEAU

LOWER CLARK FORK

LOWER CLARK FORK

NORTHERN CASCADES

NORTHERN CASCADES

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN

OWYHEE UPLANDS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Natural

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Alternativ

1

600

0

17,700

0

100

0

7,100

0

200

0

2,300

0

6,300

0

800

0

0

0

0

1,000

0

10,000

0

0

0

300

0

0

0

0

100

0

4,900

0

2

400

4,400

15,400

0

200

1,400

3,500

0

0

200

2,100

100

5,600

0

500

0

0

0

0

1,400

0

8,600

0

100

0

0

0

100

0

0

0

0

5,600

0

3

3,000

4,400

52,000

0

1,600

1,400

24,400

0

100

200

17,100

100

34,700

0

9,200

0

400

0

0

23,700

0

7,700

0

700

0

100

0

800

100

0

0

0

47,000

0

4

4,000

4,400

57,800

0

1,800

1,400

24,400

0

100

200

19,700

100

37,400

0

15,100

0

500

0

0

26,100

0

1 1 ,000

0

800

0

100

0

800

0

0

0

0

76,400

0
Appendix 2-F (continued).

Management Management Alternativ

ERUNAME Area Class 1234

OWYHEE UPLANDS EEIS BLM/FS Other 2,400 3,200 16,100 42,400 

OWYHEE UPLANDS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0 100 100 100 

OWYHEE UPLANDS UCRB BLM/FS Other 7,700 7,400 72,300 92,300 

SNAKE HEADWATERS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

SNAKE HEADWATERS UCRB BLM/FS Other 100 400 2,400 6,800 

SOUTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

SOUTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Other 800 1,000 1,500 1,600 

UPPER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

UPPER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Other 100 100 500 500 

UPPER KLAMATH EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

UPPER KLAMATH EEIS BLM/FS Other 1,700 1,700 1,200 700 

UPPER SNAKE UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

UPPER SNAKE UCRB BLM/FS Other 2,500 1,800 39,100 86,100 

Range - Grazing Effects

BLUE MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 6,400 11,100 11,100 11,100 

BLUE MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Other 306,900 207,200 281,400 325,100 

BLUE MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 200 500 500 500 

BLUE MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 6,500 2,700 9,400 10,700 

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 16,300 20,100 20,100 20,100 

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 570,000 355,100 700,700 710,600 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 3,000 3,100 3,100 3,100 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU EEIS BLM/FS Other 91,500 54,000 102,500 128,800 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 200 300 300 300 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU UCRB BLM/FS Other 36,600 26,600 38,600 46,500 

LOWER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 500 200 200 200 

LOWER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Other 1,200 800 2,300 2,300 

NORTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 2,900 2,800 2,800 2,800 

NORTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Other 9,000 6,800 3,000 3,800 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Other 2,100 2,100 3,400 800 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 300 200 200 200 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 1,700 1,000 2,000 2,200 

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 182,100 172,000 172,000 172,000 

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN EEIS BLM/FS Other 2,232,400 1,526,900 2,391,000 2,666,800 2

OWYHEE UPLANDS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 92,900 100,100 100,100 100,100 
Appendix 2-F (continued).

Management Management Alternativ

E R U NAME Area Class 1234

OWYHEE UPLANDS EEIS BLM/FS Other 1,124,500 749,900 897,000 1,079,200 

OWYHEE UPLANDS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 20,000 16,400 16,400 16,400 

OWYHEE UPLANDS UCRB BLM/FS Other 1,326,800 911,500 1,377,000 1,467,400 1

SNAKE HEADWATERS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 100 100 100 100 

SNAKE HEADWATERS ' UCRB BLM/FS Other 25,500 17,600 23,400 30,100 

SOUTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 

SOUTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Other 17,700 14,800 19,400 19,500 

UPPER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 300 0 0 0 

UPPER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Other 20,300 11,800 22,100 22,100 

UPPER KLAMATH EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 6,100 5,500 5,500 5,500 

UPPER KLAMATH EEIS BLM/FS Other 16,400 11,400 13,300 14,000 

UPPER SNAKE UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 9,900 11,200 11,200 11,200 

UPPER SNAKE UCRB BLM/FS Other 242,700 177,100 273,300 321,800 

Range - Wildfire

BLUE MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 9,200 11,200 11,200 11,200 

BLUE MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Other 54,000 46,100 32,600 31,600 

BLUE MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 300 200 200 200 

BLUE MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 4,100 3,400 2,500 2,600 

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 0000

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 17,100 17,900 17,900 17,900 

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 153,000 120,800 82,000 82,800 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 6,100 7,300 7,300 7,300 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU EEIS BLM/FS Other 71,200 62,400 44,500 44,600 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 300 0 0 0 

COLUMBIA PLATEAU UCRB BLM/FS Other 800 400 400 300 

LOWER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 0 0 0 0 

LOWER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Other 500 300 100 100 

NORTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 2,400 1,900 1,900 1,900 

NORTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Other 2,800 2,400 1,800 1,700 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS EEIS BLM/FS Other 600 800 400 300 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes .0 0 0 0 

NORTHERN GLACIATED

MOUNTAINS UCRB BLM/FS Other 500 100 200 200 

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 43,900 54,200 54,200 54,200 

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN EEIS BLM/FS Other 174,200 198,300 119,900 119,600 

OWYHEE UPLANDS EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 27,400 33,200 33,200 33,200 
Appendix 2-F (continued).

Management Management Alternative

ERU NAME Area Class 1 2 3 4 

OWYHEE UPLANDS EEIS BLM/FS Other 107,100 114,500 78,000 80,500 

OWYHEE UPLANDS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 37,400 42,000 42,000 42,000 

OWYHEE UPLANDS UCRB BLM/FS Other 310,100 307,100 215,600 214,500 2

SNAKE HEADWATERS UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 500 700 700 700 

SNAKE HEADWATERS UCRB BLM/FS Other 15,300 11,000 10,100 10,400 

SOUTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 600 500 500 500 

SOUTHERN CASCADES EEIS BLM/FS Other 9,900 4,700 2,700 2,600 

UPPER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 100 100 100 100 

UPPER CLARK FORK UCRB BLM/FS Other 4,800 2,400 1,900 1,900 

UPPER KLAMATH EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes 500 300 300 300 

UPPER KLAMATH EEIS BLM/FS Other 8,200 6,700 5,100 6,000 

UPPER SNAKE UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes 19,600 21,100 21,100 21,100 

UPPER SNAKE UCRB BLM/FS Other 101,600 109,200 67,600 68,300 
Appendix 2-G. Total hectares per decad

Management

Area Management Class

Forest

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

j UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

Forest

| EEIS

Landsc

a

CD

m

o

o

o"

Q

5r*

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

- Harvest

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Other Lands

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Other Lands

Other Lands

-Thinning

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Other Lands

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Natural Processes

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

e disturbed for the long term (50 to 100 years) for potential vegetation g

Alternatives

PVG Group

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

1

0

0

0

18050

411760

1219600

80900

4289100

1752800

0

0

0

647400

1492900

3137500

175300

2168500

1845900

0

0

0

36300

1606200

650200

6500

1988900

974300

0

0

0

304800

728700

1824800

28200

2

0

0

0

7750

240730

767800

80300

4712900

1816500

0

0

0

190700

393800

1724300

170500

2298400

1880600

0

0

0

16900

794600

304000

3500

2081300

959100

0

0

0

104600

158500

676200

15900

3

0

20

0

18160

303690

775500

80900

4289100

1752800

0

0

0

494500

1071900

2181300

175300

2168500

1845900

0

200

0

14000

937200

462700

6500

1988900

974300

0

0

0

26300

544100

806700

28200

4

0

0

0

17820

301700

723200

80900

4289100

1752800

0

0

0

517300

1104200

1797800

175300

2168500

1845900

0

0

0

13700

934600

478800

6500

1988900

974300

0

0

0

27900

567400

789800

28200

5

0

0

0

14740

301600

844900

80900

4289100

1752800

0

0

0

403600

961000

2324000

175300

2168500

1845900

0

0

0

13700

935700

437400

6500

1988900

974300

0

0

0

37100

532300

942900

28200
Appendix 2-G (continued).

8

0)

3

Q.

(fl

a

Q)

•a

(D

o

g^

*

Management

Area Management Class

UCRB

UCRB

Forest

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

Forest

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

Other Lands

Other Lands

- Prescribed Fire

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Other Lands

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Other Lands

Other Lands

- Wildfire

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Other Lands

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Alternatives

PVG Group

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

1

1151200

1060400

151000

43500

75300

3100

1159400

1000

4400

1900

1300

442500

74000

301500

114200

722500

37900

19800

2200

1000

367900

447900

276000

263900

2584500

730200

120600

3925700

909600

856000

742800

543300

1158100

1551800

1567800

392300

2

1246400

987400

151000

43500

75300

22100

928700

29000

4100

1568300

1300

442500

74000

301500

494300

494700

182800

19400

625800

1000

367900

447900

276000

290900

2690900

788800

114200

3858500

890100

856000

742800

543300

1295800

1704900

1725700

371700

3

1151200

1060400

407600

973700

234900

206300

6863600

639600

4400

1900

1300

1185300

1494100

930900

1738200

3865700

2703000

19800

2200

1000

250900

272200

207000

188300

1595200

563500

120600

3925700

909600

563400

453700

417500

749700

1061300

1205600

392300

4

1151200

1060400

407600

973700

234900

206200

6866100

650500

4400

1900

1300

1185300

1494100

930900

1727100

3825900

2762300

19800

2200

1000

250900

272100

207300

188400

1601600

564600

120600

3925700

909600

563400

453700

417500

742700

1053300

1248300

392300

11

106

3

9

22

1

662

5

7

13

6

14

35

212

2

27

2

2

164

5

1

392

9

7

4

8

11

12

3
Appendix 2-G (continued).

Q)

15

Q.

</)

O

Q)

O

o

Management

Area Management Class

UCRB

UCRB

Range

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

Range

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

Other Lands

Other Lands

- Exotics

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Other Lands

Other Lands

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Other Lands

Other Lands

Other Lands

- Prescribed Fire

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Other Lands

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Alternatives

PVG Group

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

1

2094000

912400

2100

16100

55300

600

71400

50300

304000

12000

173900

765400

1902600

8300

5400

9700

15400

1300

227500

172100

394100

14200

202400

297300

736900

7800

100

0

0

0

314200

15200

26800

0

926300

478500

2

2123500

850200

4000

13800

29400

0

8100

1000

1202500

3700

173900

765400

1902600

8300

16500

7400

8900

1100

14500

20600

913400

5400

202400

297300

736900

7800

31900

0

500

0

287900

3700

21400

0

926300

478500

3

2094000

912400

4000

13800

29400

0

30200

42000

99500

5500

173900

765400

1902600

8300

16500

7400

8900

1100

127500

195400

167000

9600

202400

297300

736900

7800

31900

0

500

0

1630200

14500

20300

0

926300

478500

4

2094000

912400

4000

13800

29400

0

35400

50900

137500

7000

173900

765400

1902600

8300

16500

7400

8900

1100

144800

212800

186600

11500

202400

297300

736900

7800

31900

0

500

0

1688700

2500

24100

0

926300

478500

209

91

2

3

4

13

17

76

190

1

18

18

24

1

20

29

73

3

160

1

1

92

47
Appendix 2-G (continued).

Alternatives

Management

Area Management Class PV G Group 1234

EEIS Other Lands DRY SHRUB 568400 568400 568400 568400 56

EEIS Other Lands WOODLAND 0000

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes COOL SHRUB 0 9900 9900 9900 

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes DR Y GRASS 0000

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes DRY SHRUB 0 1000 1000 1000 

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes WOODLAND 0000

UCRB BLM/FS Other COOL SHRUB 86200 77500 454500 458500 20

UCRB BLM/FS Other DRY GRASS 30800 2800 43100 41400 3

UCRB BLM/FS Other DRY SHRUB 114900 123500 10030 105900 9

UCRB BLM/FS Other WOODLAND 0 0 19000 21000 

UCRB Other Lands COOL SHRUB 507200 507200 507200 507200 50

UCRB Other Lands DRY GRASS 166100 166100 166100 166100 16

UCRB Other Lands DRY SHRUB 477900 477900 477900 477900 47

UCRB Other Lands WOODLAND 0000

Range - Improvement

EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes COOL SHRUB 0000

EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes DR Y GRASS 0000

EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes DRY SHRUB 0 100 100 100 

EEIS BLM/FS Natural Processes WOODLAND 0000

EEIS BLM/FS Other COOL SHRUB 292700 28000 183500 193900 18

EEIS BLM/FS Other DRY GRASS 5100 2100 22000 31000 1

EEIS BLM/FS Other DRY SHRUB 52200 97700 372400 527000 27

EEIS BLM/FS Other WOODLAND 0 0 300 400 

EEIS Other Lands COOL SHRUB 695100 695100 695100 695100 69

EEIS Other Lands DRY GRASS 30020 30020 30020 30020 3

EEIS Other Lands DRY SHRUB 1101900 1101900 1101900 1101900 110

EEIS Other Lands WOODLAND 1300 1300 1300 1300 

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes COOL SHRUB 0000

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes DR Y GRASS 0000

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes DRY SHRUB 0 100 100 100 

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes WOODLAND 0000

UCRB BLM/FS Other COOL SHRUB 107200 91300 194100 219300 13

UCRB BLM/FS Other DRY GRASS 13100 4800 132500 152200 4

UCRB BLM/FS Other DRY SHRUB 4000 59700 404500 481800 17

UCRB BLM/FS Other WOODLAND 100 0 800 600 

UCRB Other Lands COOL SHRUB 229100 229100 229100 229100 22

UCRB Other Lands DRY GRASS 10030 10030 10030 10030 1

UCRB Other Lands DRY SHRUB 394300 394300 394300 394300 39
Appendix 2-G (continued).

m

:3

Q.

<f>

O

Q)

m

o

o

Management

Area Management Class

UCRB

Range

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

Range

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

Other Lands

- Grazing Effects

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Other Lands

Other Lands

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Other Lands

Other Lands

Other Lands

- Wildfire

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Natural

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

BLM/FS Other

Other Lands

Other Lands

Other Lands

Other Lands

BLM/FS Natural

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Processes

Alternatives

PVG Group

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

1

600

4130

17160

597390

640

85820

95990

3260990

6870

125110

1223660

1380460

7320

12090

10530

54140

103670

1007940

868250

57110

728090

560310

5830

131600

106700

747600

3600

1053700

271800

3852700

17800

1010500

688000

5392200

16100

231600

2

600

5160

23180

556460

1060

51620

46670

2162990

2750

125110

1223660

1380460

7320

14920

11720

42680

41040

481190

610820

57110

728090

560310

5830

139900

114300

887500

3800

949800

189200

6426000

16000

1010500

688000

5392200

16100

244400

3

600

5160

23180

556460

1060

108520

78840

2552990

6890

125110

1223660

1380460

7320

14920

11720

42680

103380

1054740

830910

57110

728090

560310

5830

139900

114300

887500

3800

561200

143700

2356400

11400

1010500

688000

5392200

16100

244400

4

600

5160

23180

556460

1060

130730

82060

2850580

6280

125110

1223660

1380460

7320

14920

11720

42680

117200

1135680

928700

57110

728090

560310

5830

139900

114300

887500

3800

527900

144200

2315500

12000

1010500

688000

5392200

16100

244400

2

55

10

8

262

12

122

138

1

1

4

10

96

92

5

72

56

13

11

88

60

15

262

1

101

68

539

1

24
Appendix 2-G (continued).

Alternatives

Management

Area Management Class PV G Group 1234

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes DRY GRASS 59900 68500 68500 68500 6

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes DRY SHRUB 467800 518900 518900 518900 51

UCRB BLM/FS Natural Processes WOODLAND 5800 7600 7600 7600 

UCRB BLM/FS Other COOL SHRUB 1855400 1748300 1139000 1103100 154

UCRB BLM/FS Other DRY GRASS 803900 568800 412800 418600 52

UCRB BLM/FS Other DRY SHRUB 4113000 5231500 2215200 2215100 301

UCRB BLM/FS Other WOODLAND 31200 24800 17000 17400 2

UCRB Other Lands COOL SHRUB 576600 576600 576600 576600 57

UCRB Other Lands DRY GRASS 40060 40060 40060 40060 4

UCRB Other Lands DRY SHRUB 2383500 2383500 2383500 2383500 238

UCRB Other Lands WOODLAND 7400 7400 7400 7400 
Appendix 2-H. Percent of Basin Forested and

fire, thinning, harvest,

Vegetation

Type

Forest

Forest

Forest

Forest

Forest

Forest

Forest

Forest

Forest

Forest

Forest

Forest

Range

Range

Range

< Range

Range

Range

Range

i Range

Range

£J" Range

g^ Range

(/) Range

S | Range

•0 j Range

m j.

 Ra

"9

e

O i Range

O

Ownership

Class

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

OTHER

OTHER

OTHER

OTHER

OTHER

OTHER

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

BLM/FS

OTHER

OTHER

OTHER

OTHER

OTHER

OTHER

OTHER

OTHER

seeding, exotic control)

PVT Group

COLD FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COLD FOREST

COLD FOREST

DRY FOREST

DRY FOREST

MOIST FOREST

MOIST FOREST

COOL SHRUB

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

WOODLAND

COOL SHRUB

COOL SHRUB

DRY GRASS

DRY GRASS

DRY SHRUB

DRY SHRUB

WOODLAND

WOODLAND

Rangeland PVGs affected by

by broad-scale

Projection

Years

First decade

Long-term

First decade

Long-term

First decade

Long-term

First decade

Long-term

First decade

Long-term

First decade

Long-term

First decade

Long-term

First decade

Long-term

First decade

Long-term

First decade

Long-term

First decade

Long-term

First decade

Long-term

First decade

Long-term

First decade

Long-term

alternative.

Historical

10

10

40

40

13

13

10

10

43

43

16

16

28

28

84

84

15

15

9

9

28

28

76

76

19

19

9

9

decade

1

10

11

25

27

17

16

9

11

31

34

21

19

14

14

14

14

9

12

5

5

24

24

13

16

14

20

1

1

by direct

2

10

11

18

19

11

11

9

10

38

40

22

19

13

14

10

10

10

17

4

4

24

24

13

16

14

20

1

1

forest

3

15

15

39

39

17

17

9

11

31

34

21

19

24

16

10

10

9

9

12

5

24

24

13

16

14

20

1

1

disturbance

Alternative

4

15

15

39

40

16

16

9

11

31

34

21

19

26

16

10

10

11

9

14

6

24

24

13

16

14

20

1

1

(w

3

2

2

2

2

2
348 Landscape Ecology
Appendix 2-1

Average yearly hectares of disturbance for

years by forest and range cluster group.

Disturbance

Cluster

Group

BLM/FS lands for long-term simulation

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

L t^.f^^f\rf^f\

Forest-Harvest

Forest-Prescribed Fire

Forest-Thinning

Forest-Wildfire

Range - Exotics

Range - Grazing Effects

Range - Prescribed Fire

Range - Rangeland Improvement

F

H

J

L

M

F

H

J

L

M

F

H

J

L

M

F

H

J

L

M

F

H

J

L

M

F

H

J

L

M

F

H

J

L

M

F

H

J

L

M

8941

17322

11037

41732

31301

2354

13946

2206

10457

4109

4753

8283

5520

16262

17747

8885

48795

10254

29756

20836

1481

1419

131

6339

4289

26101

47149

5865

386117

217101

1221

279

62

2868

1569

1110

181

22

2852

1098

2671

5152

5396

24421

18766

2488

16191

2649

8920

4669

1032

2206

2013

8032

7707

9564

52094

10920

30674

22122

860

371

59

15333

5995

17823

25314

4274

271464

150887

1391

108

24

2795

1318

1006

170

12

3225

1228

4725

14931

6788

29566

23043

16181

79622

16975

68091

41479

1921

4740

2871

8997

9616

6159

32503

7236

19397

15209

900

1435

144

2510

2704

28277

51060

5874

367272

209357

5852

810

115

12324

4624

1239

1025

116

6096

4720

5974 6958

14931

6788

29566

18072

16294

79622

16975

68091

41580

2556

4740

2871

8997

9234

5793

32503

7236

19397

15784

1123

1453

156

3373

2719

32769

52274

6004

414513

210171

6163

839

108

12734

4656

1560

1031

130

8723

4739

10777

6788

29566

24754

16559

59620

16975

68091

32258

2675

3960

2871

8997

10863

5714

39642

7236

19397

16411

1119

1534

139

2550

3989

29123

46734

5963

367239

215249

5739

164

88

12241

2273

1012

220

96

6015

1043

4627

11577

5681

28509

16696

10713

62261

16826

68051

41765

1881

4092

2527

8721

8862

7609

38480

7567

19707

16080

962

911

104

3219

979

30808

23782

3988

402709

149645

5996

283

73

12377

2319

1308

311

64

8422

889

2453

2751

4628

24240

13993

2332

7444

10972

50793

25620

939

1194

1964

6969

6528

10787

78086

11249

25978

22971

860

634

74

3222

2601

25684

17163

3295

311851

121232

5786

116

23

10433

1171

1098

35

31

5849

462

Landscape Ecology 349
Appendix 2-1 (continued).

Disturbance

Cluster

Group

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

• i * \ lectares

Range-Wildfire F

H

J

L

M

12506

12977

873

71861

45154

12116

10334

534

99485

53504

7538

8305

408

45930

29772

7349

8192

416

45113

29789

8584

10608

452

46257

42968

7858

9217

475

45730

39228

15390

23732

1061

57937

47967

Landscape Ecology