Terrestrial Communities

The composition of communities across a landscape directly affects ecosystem processes and

functions. Because of this interrelationship, we

attempt to understand how the various community components interact and respond to differences

in their environment to accurately portray subsequent ecosystem changes.

Each of landscape's vegetation communities has

ecological implications at multiple scales. The

landscapes change over time and space, that is

temporally and spatially. Because these changes are

so numerous and complex, our ability to detect

change varies. However, by studying the magnitude and rates at which landscape composition

varies, we can improve our ability to predict the

effects of change on ecological processes and functions. We can also estimate the landscape's suitability and the probability of persistence for relevant biota, namely the plants and animals that live

there. To better understand the complexity of

ecosystem dynamics, such studies must be conducted across multiple temporal and spatial scales.

For evaluation of terrestrial community departures, we used a continuous coverage of broadscale vegetation data to assess the historic-tocurrent and projected future change of vegetation

communities within 164 subbasins of the Basin.

An assessment of broad-scale vegetation changes

across larger geographic scales within the Basin

was needed to provide a context for potential ecological effects across varying spatial and temporal

scales. For example, do historic-to-current trends

continue into the future, and are the future trends

consistent between the Basin as a whole and the

two EIS areas, and among all ownerships and

BLM- and FS- administered lands within these

two regions?

We hoped that quantitative data about the spatial

differences of broad-scale vegetation change would

help biologists and botanists to infer persistence

probabilities of relevant biota. As an example,

a species may be either widely- or sparselydistributed throughout a landscape, or be restricted to relatively smaller areas within a landscape in

peripheral, disjunct, or endemic distribution patterns (Lesica and Shelly 1991).

The persistence of widely- or sparsely-distributed

species may be more closely associated with the

community composition of the entire Basin. Conversely, the persistence of other species having

smaller geographic ranges in peripheral, disjunct

or endemic distributions may be more closely correlated with the community composition of smaller landscapes such as the two EIS areas. Because

of these different landscape correlations among

species, we discuss the historic-to-current period

change in composition of broad-scale vegetation

communities throughout the Basin as a whole;

within the two EIS assessment regions, which are

the Eastside EIS and the Upper Columbia EIS

areas; and within different ownership strata of

these two regions.

We evaluated the proportional change of a community's areal extent, which is its class change. In

the evaluation, we realized that a community's

areal extent may not currently exhibit substantial

ecological consequences if changes have occurred

to the community within some expected range of

variation in which biological entities and processes

have since evolved. Therefore, only by comparing

the magnitude of change to some historical range

of expected conditions can we infer trends in

ecosystem structure, composition, and functions.

Currently, there is a significant lack of information

about the broad-scale habitat relationships and the

population responses to habitat change for most

species occurring in the Basin. A comparison of

the projected availability of broad-scale vegetation

community types to their expected historical range

of conditions allows coarse-filter inferences of the

risks to species persistence (Hunter 1991). A primary assumption of a coarse-filter approach to

habitat assessment is: If the areal extent of a community or habitat occurs within its estimated historLandscape Ecology
ical range of conditions, then most species that have

adapted to those historical conditions should be able

to persist into the future. The likelihood of persistence decreases substantially as the availability of a

community type falls below its historical range,

and increases substantially when a community's

extent occurs above its historical range. Fitness of

many species is also strongly correlated with finescale habitat attributes. Although we addressed

fine-scale attributes through statistical inference,

we could not precisely simulate fine-scale attribute

distribution in response to DEIS alternatives.

Methods for Evaluating Terrestrial

Communities

We aggregated 41 cover types and 25 structural

stages into 24 terrestrial communities, grouping

them according to similarities in moisture, temperature, elevation, structure, and use by vertebrate species (table 2.24).

Trends were quantified for each alternative by the

percent of change in terrestrial communities

between historic and current periods, and between

current and 100-year projections. Future availabilities of terrestrial communities were simulated by

CRBSUM, which is a spatially explicit, deterministic vegetation simulation model with stochastic

properties (Keane and others 1996).

Ecologically significant trends within a community

were said to occur if the community's areal extent

changed by at least 20 percent within the stratum

being assessed. We evaluated current and future

availabilities of each community in respect to the

predicted historical range. Historical ranges of the

areal extent of vegetation community types were

simulated for each stratum by CRBSUM.

Minimum and maximum historical values were

defined for a single 400-year run, with the outputs simulated for years 0, 50, 100, 200, 300, and

400. Initial conditions were denoted as year 0 for

both the historical simulations and the alternative

simulation process (Menakis and others 1996).

Trends were summarized for the following six

region and ownership strata:

• ICBEMP Assessment Area: all ownerships.

• ICBEMP Assessment Area: BLM- and FSadministered lands.

• Eastside EIS area: All ownerships.

• Eastside EIS area: BLM- and FS-administered

lands.

• Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area: All

ownerships.

• Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area: BLMand FS-administered lands.

Assumptions and Notes About

Simulation Methods and Results

Following are some assumptions and notes about

simulation methods and results for riparian,

exotic, and terrestrial communities.

Riparian Communities — The areal extent

for riparian types such as riparian herblands,

shrublands, and woodlands was underestimated

historically and not accurate for the current period (Jones and Hann 1996). Based on mid-scale

samples (Hessburg and others 1996) we assumed

that riparian communities had ecologically significant declines between historic and current

periods.

Although the current extent of riparian types was

not accurate, the predicted future trends (not

amounts) for riparian communities are considered

reasonable. Therefore, our discussion of riparian

types in the following text will be limited to projected future trends.

Trends in riparian community responses for

Alternatives 2 through 6 were more negative than

suggested by the objectives and the standards

(appendix I) for those alternatives. To estimate

riparian community effects more precisely for

those five alternatives, we suggest that more

reliance be placed on DEIS alternative objectives

and standards than on our simulations.

Landscape Ecology
Table 2.24 — Cover type and structural stage composition of terrestrial communities.

Terrestrial Community

Agriculture

Barren/rock

Water

Urban

Subalpine forests:

Montane forests:

Lower montane forests:

early-serai

mid-serai

late-serai multi-layer

late-serai single-layer

early-serai

mid-serai

late-serai multi-layer

late-serai single-layer

early-serai

mid-serai

late-serai multi-layer

late-serai single-layer

Cover Types

Cropland/hay/pasture

Barren

Water

Urban

Whitebark pine/alpine larch, mountain

hemlock, Engelmann spruce/

subalpine fir, whitebark pine

Pacific silver fir/mountain hemlock,

grand fir/white fir, red fir, interior

Douglas-fir, western larch, western

white pine, lodgepole pine, western

red cedar/western hemlock, Sierra

mixed conifer

Interior ponderosa pine, Pacific

poderosa pine

Structural Stages

N/A'

N/A

N/A

N/A

1

2, 3, 4, 5

6

7

1

2, 3, 4, 5

6

7

1

2, 3, 4, 5

6

7

Upland woodlands

Upland shrublands

Upland herblands

Alpine tundra

Riparian woodlands

Riparian shrublands

Riparian herblands

Exotic herblands

Limber pine, Oregon white oak

juniper woodlands, mixed conifer

woodlands, juniper/sagebrush

Antelope bitterbrush/bluebunch

wheatgrass, mountain mahogany,

mountain big sagebrush, low

sagebrush, salt desert shrub,

chokecherry/serviceberry/rose, big

sagebrush

Agropyron bunchgrass, native forb,

fescue/bunchgrass

Alpine tundra

Aspen, cottonwood/willow

Wetland/shrub

Herbaceous wetlands

Exotic forb/annual grass

All

All

All

All

All

All

All

All

1N/A = Not Applicable.

Landscape Ecology 123
Exotic Herbland — The areal extent of the

exotic herbland community compared to other

alternatives was overestimated for the 100-year

projection of Alternative 2. Since the projected

increase in exotic herblands was derived from primarily the upland shrubland community, the areal

extent of upland shrubland was underestimated

for the Alternative 2 projection. However, we

believe that the objectives of Alternative 2 are similar to those of Alternative 1, at least regarding the

dispersal and control of exotic plants. Consequently, modeled values of the exotic herblands,

upland shrubland, and upland herbland communities were adjusted to those of Alternative 1.

Rates of increase for the exotic community were

modeled conservatively for all alternatives.

Because of these modeling adjustments, the exotic

community would likely increase at a faster rate

than projected.

Terrestrial Communities in Alternative 7 —

Terrestrial communities were modeled using a first

iteration of management prescriptions (Rx) rather

than the second and improved iteration; as a result

of lack of time. Consequendy, the trends that

would be more representative of the preliminary

draft EIS Alternative 7 are qualitatively discussed

in reference to the simulation. An improved simulation would be more of an average between the

simulated Alternative 7 and the simulation of

Alternative 3.

Results of Evaluating Terrestrial

Communities by Alternative

Alternative 1

ICBEMP Assessment Area: All Ownerships —

Ecologically significant trends were projected for

58 percent of the terrestrial communities in this

region and stratum (table 2.25). Increases of

approximately 200 to 400 percent were projected

to occur in three communities: early-serai lower

montane, and the late-serai multi-layer communities of lower montane and subalpine. Conversely,

there would be decreases of more than 50 percent

in four others: the late-serai single-layer communities of montane and subalpine, and the herbland

and woodland riparian communities.

Alternative 1 would reverse the significant historic

to current trends for 8 of 16 communities. However, significant losses would continue for the lateserai lower montane single layer, all three riparian

communities, and the upland shrubland communities. Conversely, significant increases would continue for the exotic herbland, mid-serai lower

montane, and upland woodland communities.

Under Alternative 1, 62 percent of the communities of the entire Basin would likely fall outside of

their historical ranges after 100 years (table 2.26).

While the areal extents of five communities that

currently occur outside of their historical ranges

would likely fall within their historical ranges, two

types currently within their historical ranges

would likely occur outside.

ICBEMP Assessment Area: BLM- and FSadministered Lands — Ecologically significant

changes were projected between the current period and year 100 across 58 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region and stratum

(table 2.27).

Significant historic to current period trends would

be reversed for 5 of 11 types: early-serai lower

montane, early-serai subalpine, late-serai singleand multi-layer subalpine, and upland herbland.

Significant historic to current declines would continue in all three riparian communities and the

late-serai lower montane single-layer communities,

whereas positive trends would continue for the

exotic herbland community.

Under Alternative 1, about 34 percent of the

terrestrial communities on BLM- and FSadministered lands in the Basin would likely occur

at levels outside of their historical ranges after 100

years (table 2.28).

Eastside EIS: All Ownerships — We detected

ecologically significant class changes between

current and year 100 for 67 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region and stratum

(table 2.29).

22 Landscape Ecology
Table 2.25 — Historical and future trends' of the areal extent of terrestrial communities for all ownership

are expressed as percent change.

Historical

Terrestrial Community Trend

Agricultural

Alpine

Early-serai Montane Forest

Early-serai Lower Montane Forest

Early-serai Subalpine Forest

Exotic Herbland

3

Late-serai Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Multi-layer

Multi-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Single-layer

Mid-serai Montane Forest

Mid-serai Lower Montane Forest

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest

Rock/Barren

Upland Herbland

Upland Shrubland

Upland Woodland

Urban

Water

N/A

2

-0.2

-8.4

-76.8

48.2

N/A

-11.2

8.4

-34.5

-80.6

-63.8

36.3

58.6

53.0

-1.0

0.0

-66.8

-30.5

49.5

0.0

-0.2

Alt. 1

Yr. 100

-2.8

0.0

-18.5

408.1

-42.4

84.2

36.7

-62.6

225.2

-30.9

266.4

-55.9

-20.3

19.3

-10.3

0.0

87.5

-21.7

9.4

0.0

0.0

Alt. 2

Yr. 100

-2.8

0.0

-2.2

315.7

-44.0

84.2

58.3

-46.8

193.2

-1.9

277.2

-55.2

-25.5

6.5

-17.4

0.0

66.0

-24.5

11.1

0.0

0.0

Alt. 3

Yr. 100

-2.8

0.0

-10.1

465.7

-9.1

29.1

54.9

-40.1

159.6

123.2

221.6

-55.9

-25.0

-2.9

-23.5

0.0

99.7

-19.2

3.5

0.0

0.0

Alt. 4

Yr. 100

-2.8

0.0

-11.6

467.7

-8.2

27.7

57.9

-38.0

159.6

123.2

228.1

-56.0

-25.4

-2.8

-22.5

0.0

108.1

-20.4

2.3

0.0

0.0

A

Yr. 

-1

45

-2

5

5

-3

16

11

24

-5

-2

-2

9

-1

'Historical trend = percent change between historical and current periods.

Future trend = percent change between current period and year 100 for each alternative.

'N/A = Not Applicable.

'Amunt adjusted in Alternative 2 due to errors in modeling.
Table 2.26 — Areal extent (percentage) of terrestrial communities for minimum, maximum, and initial his

future projections for year 100 for the preliminary draft EISs alternatives for all ownerships within the Bas

Historical Historical Historical

Terrestrial Community Minimum Maximum Initial

Current

Level

AIM

Yr. 100

Alt. 2

Yr. 100

Alt. 3

Yr. 100

Alt. 4

Yr. 100

n

Agricultural

Alpine

Early-serai Montane Forest

Early-serai Lower Montane Forest

Early-serai Subalpine Forest

Exotic Herbland'

Late-serai Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Single-layer

Mid-serai Montane Forest

Mid-serai Lower Montane Forest

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest

Riparian Herbland

2

Riparian Shrubland

2

Riparian Woodland

2

Rock/Barren

Upland Herbland

Upland Shrubland

Upland Woodland

Urban

Water

0.0

0.2

7.7

1.1

0.8

0.0

3.8

0.8

1.7

4.8

1.2

0.2

10.2

3.9

2.2

0.3

0.4

1.0

0.2

14.9

27.0

1.9

0.0

0.9

0.0

0.2

8.7

2.7

1.2

0.0

6.6

1.4

2.3

5.6

2.5

0.6

12.0

4.9

2.7

1.0

0.8

1.3

0.2

21.5

36.7

2.3

0.0

0.9

0.0

0.2

8.7

1.1

1.2

0.0

3.8

0.8

2.2

5.6

1.2

0.6

10.5

4.9

2.7

—

—

—

0.2

14.9

36.7

1.9

0.0

0.9

16.1

0.2

7.9

0.3

1.8

2.1

3.4

0.8

1.4

1.1

0.4

0.8

16.6

7.5

2.7

—

—

—

0.2

4.9

25.5

2.8

0.2

0.9

15.6

0.2

6.5

1.3

1.0

3.8

4.6

0.3

4.6

0.7

1.6

0.3

13.2

9.0

2.4

0.1

0.3

0.7

0.2

9.3

20.0

3.1

0.2

0.9

15.6

0.2

7.8

1.1

1.0

3.8

5.3

0.5

4.2

1.1

1.7

0.3

12.4

8.0

2.2

0.1

0.3

0.9

0.2

8.2

19.3

3.2

0.2

0.9

15.6

0.2

7.1

1.5

1.6

2.7

5.2

0.5

3.7

2.4

1.4

0.3

12.5

7.3

2.1

0.1

0.3

0.8

0.2

9.9

20.6

2.9

0.2

0.9

15.6

0.2

7.0

1.46

1.7

2.6

5.3

0.5

3.7

2.4

1.5

0.3

12.4

7.3

2.1

0.1

0.3

0.8

0.2

10.3

20.3

2.9

0.2

0.9

'Amount adjusted in Alternative 2 due to errors in modeling.

2Due to problems with resolution of historic mapping, the historic to current trend is not applicable. However, the future changes are somewhat u
Table 2.27 — Historical and future trends' of the areal extent of terrestrial communities for BLM- and FS-a

in the Basin. Values are expressed as percent change.

Historical

Terrestrial Community Trend

Agricultural

Alpine

Early-serai Montane Forest

Early-serai Lower Montane Forest

Early-serai Subalpine Forest

Exotic Herbland

3

Late-serai Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Single-layer

Mid-serai Montane Forest

Mid-serai Lower Montane Forest

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest

Rock/Barren

Upland Herbland

Upland Shrubland

Upland Woodland

Urban

Water

N/A

2

0.0

9.2

-70.9

46.6

N/A

2

4.0

-5.1

-13.6

-79.3

-61.4

28.7

28.7

9.6

-2.6

0.0

-20.1

-7.8

-11.6

N/A

0.0

Alt. 1

Yr. 100

-2.8

0.0

-20.3

354.2

-44.9

30.1

23.9

-54.6

118.1

-5.1

235.0

-55.3

-12.2

53.9

-15.1

0.0

80.6

-16.0

44.5

0.0

0.0

Alt. 2

Yr. 100

-2.8

0.0

-25.9

271.5

-44.2

30.1

58.1

-30.1

142.2

-28.0

252.9

-54.6

-13.9

31.7

-17.3

0.0

29.3

-20.4

49.0

0.0

0.0

Alt. 3

Yr. 100

-2.8

0.0

-8.6

445.5

-8.2

-67.7

46.9

-18.3

20.6

275.3

186.3

-55.3

-19.7

-4.4

-30.2

0.0

106.3

-12.0

29.3

0.0

0.0

Alt. 4

Yr. 100

-2.8

0.0

-10.6

448.6

-7.3

-70.2

50.7

-14.8

20.6

275.4

193.3

-55.4

-20.3

-4.3

-29.2

0.0

124.0

-14.0

26.1

0.0

0.0

Alt

Yr. 1

-2

0

-9

436

-22

-28

41

-16

28

258

209

-55

-17

-0

-27

0

90

-12

32

0

0

'Historical trend = percent change between historical and current periods.

Future trend = percent change between current period and year 100 for each alternative.

!NA = Not Applicable.

'Amount adjusted in Alternative 2 due to errors in modeling.
Table 2.28 — Areal extent (percentage) of terrestrial communities for minimum, maximum, and initial his

future projections for year 100 for preliminary draft EIS alternatives for BLM- and FS-administered lands w

Historical Historical Historical

Terrestrial Community Minimum Maximum Initial

Current

Level

Alt. 1

Yr. 100

Alt. 2

Yr. 100

Alt. 3

Yr. 100

Alt. 4

Yr. 100

„ .

Alpine

Early-serai Montane Forest

Early-serai Lower Montane Forest

Early-serai Subalpine Forest

Exotic Herbland

1

Late-serai Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Single-layer

Mid-serai Montane Forest

Mid-serai Lower Montane Forest

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest

Riparian Herbland

2

Riparian Shrubland

2

Riparian Woodland

2

Rock/Barren

Upland Herbland

Upland Shrubland

Upland Woodland

Urban

Water

0.3

9.5

1.1

1.2

0.0

5.0

1.1

1.7

4.6

2.1

0.4

13.7

3.4

3.6

0.0

0.1

1.2

0.4

5.7

25.2

1.8

0.0

0.3

0.3

10.2

2.4

2.2

0.0

8.8

1.8

2.2

5.6

4.0

1.1

16.9

5.1

4.6

0.3

0.2

1.4

0.4

14.0

34.0

2.4

0.0

0.3

0.3

10.1

1.1

2.2

0.0

5.0

1.1

2.1

5.5

2.1

1.1

15.7

5.1

4.6

—

—

—

0.4

5.7

34.0

2.4

0.0

0.3

0.3

11.0

0.3

3.2

2.2

5.2

1.0

1.8

1.1

0.8

1.4

20.3

5.5

4.5

—

—

—

0.4

4.5

31.3

2.1

0.0

0.3

0.3

8.8

1.4

1.7

2.9

6.4

0.5

4.0

1.1

2.7

0.6

17.8

8.5

3.8

0.1

0.3

0.9

0.4

8.2

26.3

3.1

0.0

0.3

0.3

8.2

1.2

1.8

2.9

8.2

0.7

4.5

0.8

2.8

0.6

17.4

7.3

3.7

0.1

0.3

1.3

0.4

5.8

24.9

3.2

0.0

0.3

0.3

10.1

1.7

2.9

0.7

7.6

0.8

2.2

4.3

2.3

0.6

16.3

5.3

3.2

0.1

0.3

1.1

0.4

9.3

27.6

2.7

0.0

0.3

0.3

9.8

1.7

2.9

0.7

7.8

0.9

2.2

4.3

2.3

0.6

16.1

5.3

3.2

0.1

0.3

1.0

0.4

10.1

26.9

2.7

0.0

0.3

'Amount adjusted in Alternative 2 due to errors in modeling

2Due to problems with resolution of historic mapping, the historic to current trend is not applicable. However, the future changes are somewhat u
Table 2.29 — Historical and future trends'of the areal extent of terrestrial communities for all ownerships 

Values are expressed as percednt change.

Historical

Terrestrial Community Trend

Agricultural

Alpine

Early-serai Montane Forest

Early-serai Lower Montane Forest

Early-serai Subalpine Forest

Exotic Herbland

2

Late-serai Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Single-layer

Mid-serai Montane Forest

Mid-serai Lower Montane Forest

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest

Rock/Barren

Upland Herbland

Upland Shrubland

Upland Woodland

Urban

Water

0.0

-0.4

10.6

-57.0

226.9

0.0

93.7

142.3

-12.5

-75.9

-32.7

-29.4

62.4

49.0

-66.7

0.0

-76.8

-31.1

110.3

0.0

-0.1

Alt. 1

Yr. 100

-2.8

0.0

-38.7

326.8

-35.9

188.3

-22.0

-90.5

155.3

-57.4

94.2

-57.7

-3.7

12.9

89.2

0.0

184.3

-28.4

-27.6

0.0

0.0

Alt. 2

Yr. 100

-2.8

0.0

-21.3

266.0

-40.9

188.3

-11.5

-89.2

125.2

-29.3

104.5

-56.2

-8.6

2.5

72.1

0.0

153.3

-32.2

-26.3

0.0

0.0

Alt. 3

Yr. 100

-2.8

0.0

-31.3

361.5

-15.0

126.0

-12.9

-81.1

107.7

56.1

80.5

-61.7

-6.5

-8.5

52.7

0.0

202.7

-26.6

-33.9

0.0

0.0

Alt. 4

Yr. 100

-2.8

0.0

-31.9

364.3

-15.2

122.3

-12.2

-81.2

107.7

55.9

83.5

-63.3

-6.6

-8.5

53.5

0.0

218.9

-28.4

-35.1

0.0

0.0

Al

Yr. 1

-

-3

36

-1

13

-1

-8

10

5

8

-6

-

-

5

19

-2

-3

'Historical trend = percent change between historical and current periods.

Future trend = percent change between current period and year 100 for each alternative.

'Amount adjusted in Alternative 2 due to errors in modeling.
Table 2.30 —Areal extent (percentage) of terrestrial communities for minimum, maximum and initial histo

future projections; for year 100 for the preliminary draft EIS alternatives and all ownerships within the Ea

Historical Historical Historical

Terrestrial Community Minimum Maximum Initial

Current

Level

Alt. 1

Yr. 100

Alt. 2

Yr. 100

Alt. 3

Yr. 100

Alt. 4

Yr. 100

r»

Agricultural

Alpine

Early-serai Montane Forest

Early-serai Lower Montane Forest

Early-serai Subalpine Forest

Exotic Herbland

1

Late-serai Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Single-layer

Mid-serai Montane Forest

Mid-serai Lower Montane Forest

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest

Riparian Herbland

2

Riparian Shrubland

2

Riparian Woodland

2

Rock/Barren

Upland Herbland

Upland Shrubland

Upland Woodland

Urban

Water

0.0

0.2

5.9

0.8

0.2

0.0

2.5

0.5

1.9

5.7

0.4

0.1

5.6

4.6

0.8

0.4

0.4

0.1

0.0

17.2

30.4

2.3

0.0

1.2

0.0

0.2

7.4

3.5

0.4

0.0

4.4

1.0

3.0

8.6

0.9

0.2

7.1

6.3

1.6

1.0

0.8

0.1

0.0

26.6

42.7

2.7

0.0

1.2

0.0

0.2

5.9

0.8

0.2

0.0

2.5

0.5

2.7

8.6

0.4

0.2

5.6

6.3

1.6

—

—

—

0.0

17.2

42.7

2.3

0.0

1.2

20.4

0.2

6.5

0.3

0.7

1.6

4.8

1.2

2.3

2.1

0.3

0.1

9.1

9.4

0.5

—

—

—

0.0

4.0

29.4

4.8

0.2

1.2

19.9

0.2

4.0

1.4

0.4

4.6

3.8

0.1

6.0

0.9

0.5

0.1

8.8

10.7

1.0

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.0

11.3

21.1

3.5

0.2

1.2

19.9

0.2

5.1

1.2

0.4

4.6

4.3

0.1

5.3

1.5

0.6

0.1

8.3

9.7

0.9

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.0

10.1

19.9

3.6

0.2

1.2

19.9

0.2

4.5

1.5

0.6

3.6

4.2

0.2

4.8

3.2

0.5

0.1

8.5

8.6

0.8

0.1

0.4

0.1

0.0

12.1

21.6

3.2

0.2

1.2

19.9

0.2

4.4

1.5

0.6

3.5

4.2

0.2

4.8

3.2

0.5

0.0

8.5

8.6

0.8

0.1

0.4

0.1

0.0

12.7

21.1

3.1

0.2

1.2

'Amount adjusted in Alternative 2 due to errors in modeling

2Due to problems with resolution of historic mapping, the historic to current trend is not applicable. However, the current to future changes are so
Historic to current significant trends would be

reversed for nearly 50 percent of the communities.

Significant declines would continue for six communities: the late-serai single-layer lower montane

and subalpine, all three riparian communities, and

upland shrubland. Conversely, an historic to current significant increasing trend would continue

for exotic herbland and mid-serai lower montane

forest communities.

Under Alternative 1, the areal extents of 67 percent of the terrestrial communities of all lands in

the Eastside EIS area of the Basin would not likely

occur within their historical ranges after 100 years

(table 2.30).

Eastside EIS: BLM- and FS-administered

Lands — We detected ecologically significant

class changes between current and year 100 for 67

percent of the terrestrial communities in this

region and stratum (table 2.31).

Historic to current significant trends would be

reversed for 60 percent of the communities.

However, historic to current significant declines

would continue for five communities: late-serai

single-layer lower montane and subalpine, and all

three riparian types. Conversely, an historic to

current significant increasing trend for exotic

herblands would continue.

Under Alternative 1, the areal extents of 50 percent of the terrestrial communities on BLM- and

FS-administered lands in the Eastside EIS area of

the Basin would not likely occur within their historical ranges in 100 years (table 2.32).

Upper Columbia River Basin: All Ownerships —We detected ecologically significant class

changes between current and year 100 for 62 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region

and stratum (table 2.33). Six communities would

increase by more than 100 percent, whereas three

communities would decrease by at least 50 percent: late-serai subalpine single-layer, riparian

herbland, and riparian woodland types.

Historic to current significant trends would be

reversed for 68 percent of the communities. However, historic to current significant declines would

continue for three communities: riparian herbland

and riparian woodland, and upland shrubland

types. Conversely, an historic to current significant increasing trend would continue for exotic

herbland and mid-serai lower montane forest

communities.

Under Alternative 1, the areal extents of 62 percent of the terrestrial communities of the entire

Upper Columbia River Basin would not likely

occur within their historical ranges after 100 years

(table 2.34).

Upper Columbia River Basin: BLM- and FSadministered Lands — Ecologically significant

class changes were detected between current and

year 100 for 62 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region and stratum (table 2.35). Six

communities would increase by more than 100

percent, whereas three communities would

decrease by at least 50 percent: late-serai subalpine

single-layer, and riparian herbland and riparian

woodland types.

Historic to current significant trends would be

reversed for 80 percent of the communities. While

historic to current significant declines would continue for the riparian herbland and riparian woodland types, an historic to current significant

increasing trend would continue for mid-serai

lower montane forest.

Under Alternative 1, the areal extents of 38 percent of the terrestrial communities on BLM- and

FS-administered lands in the Upper Columbia

River Basin would not likely occur within their

historical ranges in 100 years (table 2.36).

Alternative 2

ICBEMP Assessment Area: All Ownerships —

We observed ecologically significant trends for 54

percent of the terrestrial communities in this

region and stratum (table 2.25). Four communities

would increase by at least 100 percent: early-serai

lower montane forest, exotic herblands and the

late-serai multi-layer lower montane and subalpine

forests. Exotic herblands may be overestimated in

Landscape Ecology
this alternative and may increase at a slower rate,

similar to Alternative 1. Conversely, late-serai subalpine single-layer forest and riparian woodland

communities would decline by about 50 percent.

Significant historic to current trends would reverse

for 9 of 17 communities. Significant historic to

current period declines would continue in the upland shrubland and all three riparian types, whereas significant historic to current period increases

would continue in the exotic herbland, mid-serai

lower montane forest, and upland woodland types.

Under Alternative 2, the area! extents of 58 percent of the terrestrial communities of the entire

Basin would not likely occur at levels within their

historical ranges within 100 years (table 2.26).

ICBEMP Assessment Area: BLM- and FSadministered Lands — Ecologically significant

trends were projected across 67 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region and stratum

(table 2.27). Four communities would increase by

more than 100 percent: early-serai lower montane

forest, exotic herblands and the late-serai multilayer lower montane and subalpine. Conversely,

the late-serai single-layer subalpine forest would

decrease by more than 50 percent.

Significant historic to current trends would

reverse for 6 of 11 communities. However, significant historic to current period losses would continue through year 100 for late-serai single-layer

lower montane forests. Conversely, the historic to

current increasing trend would continue for the

exotic herbland community.

Under Alternative 2, the areal extents of 50 percent of the terrestrial communities on BLM- and

FS-administered lands in the Basin would not

likely occur at levels within their historical ranges

in 100 years (table 2.28).

Eastside EIS: All Ownerships —We detected

ecologically significant class changes between current and year 100 for 63 percent of the terrestrial

communities in this region and stratum (table

2.29). Five communities would increase by more

than 100 percent: early-serai lower montane,

exotic herblands, late-serai multi-layer lower montane and subalpine, and upland herbland. Conversely, die late-serai single-layer montane and

subalpine types would decrease by at least 50

percent.

Historic to current period significant trends

would reverse for 53 percent of the communities.

However, historic to current significant declines

would continue for: late-serai single-layer lower

montane and subalpine, and upland shrubland.

Conversely, an historic to current significant

increasing trend would continue for exotic herbland and mid-serai lower montane forest

communities.

Under Alternative 2, the areal extents of approximately 67 percent of the terrestrial communities

on all lands in the Eastside EIS area of the Basin

would not likely occur within their historical

ranges in 100 years (table 2.30).

Eastside EIS: BLM- and PS-administered

Lands —We detected ecologically significant class

changes between current and year 100 for 58 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region

and stratum (table 2.31). There would be increases of more than 100 percent in the areal extent of

diree communities: early-serai lower montane forest, exotic herbland, and upland herbland. However, declines of more than 50 percent would

occur in the areas of three late-serai single-layer

communities: montane, lower montane, and

subalpine.

Historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 67 percent of die communities.

However, historic to current significant declines

would continue for two communities: late-serai

single-layer lower montane and subalpine forest

types. Conversely, an historic to current significant increasing trend would continue for exotic

herblands.

Under Alternative 2, the areal extents of 58 percent of the terrestrial communities on BLM- and

FS-administered lands in the Eastside EIS area of

the Basin would not likely occur within their historical ranges in 100 years (table 2.32).

130 Landscape Ecology
Table 2.31 — Historical and future trends' of the areal extent of terrestrial communities for BLM- and FS

in the Eastside EIS. Values are expressed as percent change.

Historical

Terrestrial Community Trend

Alpine

Early-serai Montane Forest

Early-serai Lower Montane Forest

Early-serai Subalpine Forest

Exotic Herbland

2

Late-serai Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Single-layer

Mid-serai Montane Forest

Mid-serai Lower Montane Forest

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest

Rock/Barren

Upland Herbland

Upland Shrubland

Upland Woodland

Urban

Water

0.0

73.3

-44.0

232.0

N/A

3

133.9

151.8

4.9

-75.8

-36.1

-31.7

17.8

-3.6

-72.1

0.0

-30.1

-7.6

27.6

N/A

0.0

Alt. 1

Yr. 100

0.0

-44.5

320.5

-41.3

116.6

-29.6

-89.2

71.0

-40.5

85.2

-57.9

15.1

55.0

92.9

0.0

284.4

-22.1

-15.1

0.0

0.0

Alt. 2

Yr. 100

0.0

-47.0

265.3

-42.8

506.0

-11.9

-87.1

89.2

-50.0

99.1

-56.2

15.4

34.8

91.0

0.0

155.2

-28.9

-11.3

0.0

0.0

Alt. 3

Yr. 100

0.0

-33.7

385.7

-17.7

-40.4

-17.5

-73.8

-5.9

169.5

68.0

-62.4

9.6

-8.5

42.5

0.0

350.8

-18.9

-33.7

0.0

0.0

Alt. 4

Yr. 100

0.0

-34.6

391.0

-17.9

-49.8

-16.7

-73.9

-6.0

169.2

71.8

-64.1

9.4

-8.4

43.5

0.0

409.0

-22.1

-37.2

0.0

0.0

A

Yr. 

-3

38

-2

-1

-2

-7

-

16

7

-6

1

-

4

33

-1

-3

'Historical trend = percent change between historical and current periods.

Future trend = percent change between current period and year 100 for each alternative.

2

 Amount adjusted in Alternative 2 due to errors in modeling.

'N/A = Not Applicable.
Table 2.32 —Areal extent (percentage) of terrestrial communities for minimum, maximum and initial histo

future projections for year 100, for the preliminary draft EIS alternatives on BLM- and FS-administered lan

EIS area.

Historical Historical Historical

Terrestrial Community Minimum Maximum Initial

Current

Level

AIM

Yr. 100

Alt. 2

Yr. 100

Alt. 3

Yr. 100

Alt. 4

Yr. 100

n

Percentage

Agricultural

Alpine

Early-serai Montane Forest

Early-serai Lower Montane Forest

Early-serai Subalpine Forest

Exotic Herbland

1

Late-serai Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Single-layer

Mid-serai Montane Forest

Mid-serai Lower Montane Forest

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest

Riparian Herbland

2

Riparian Shrubland

2

Riparian Woodland

2

Rock/Barren

Upland Herbland

Upland Shrubland

Upland Woodland

Urban

Water

0.0

0.4

6.2

0.8

0.4

0.0

3.8

0.7

2.1

6.5

0.8

0.2

9.4

4.2

1.6

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

3.8

30.2

2.0

0.0

0.6

0.0

0.4

10.0

3.7

0.9

0.0

6.3

1.3

3.8

11.2

1.7

0.4

10.3

8.0

3.3

0.5

0.3

0.1

0.0

17.1

43.2

3.1

0.0

0.6

0.0

0.4

6.2

0.8

0.4

0.0

3.8

0.7

3.3

11.2

0.8

0.4

9.5

8.0

3.3

—

—

—

0.0

3.8

43.2

3.1

0.0

0.6

16.1

0.4

10.7

0.4

1.4

1.5

8.8

1.8

3.5

2.7

0.5

0.3

11.3

7.7

0.9

—

—

—

0.0

2.7

39.9

4.0

0.0

0.6

15.6

0.4

6.0

1.8

0.8

3.3

6.2

0.2

6.0

1.6

1.0

0.1

12.9

11.9

1.8

0.1

0.6

0.1

0.0

10.3

31.1

3.4

0.0

0.6

15.6

0.4

5.7

1.5

0.8

3.3

7.8

0.2

6.6

1.3

1.1

0.1

13.0

10.4

1.8

0.1

0.6

0.1

0.0

6.8

28.4

3.5

0.0

0.6

15.6

0.4

7.1

2.1

1.2

0.9

7.3

0.5

3.3

7.3

0.9

0.1

12.3

7.1

1.3

0.1

0.6

0.1

0.0

12.0

32.4

2.6

0.0

0.6

15.6

0.4

7.0

2.1

1.2

0.8

7.3

0.5

3.3

7.3

0.9

0.1

12.3

7.1

1.3

0.1

0.6

0.1

0.0

13.6

31.1

2.5

0.0

0.6

'Amount adjusted in Alternative 2 due to errors in modeling.

'Due to problems with resolution of historic mapping, the historic to current trend is not applicable. However, the future changes are somewhat us
Table 2.33 — Historical and future trends' of the areal extent of terrestrial communities for all ownership

Columbia River Basin. Values are expressed as percent change.

Historical

Terrestrial Community Trend

Agricultural

Alpine

Early-serai Montane Forest

Early-serai Lower Montane Forest

Early-serai Subalpine Forest

Exotic Herbland

2

Late-serai Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Single-layer

Mid-serai Montane Forest

Mid-serai Lower Montane Forest

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest

Rock/Barren

Upland Herbland

Upland Shrubland

Upland Woodland

Urban

Water

0.0

0.0

-19.8

-86.8

19.5

0.0

-57.0

-54.8

-67.4

-94.8

-63.6

50.7

64.5

59.6

21.7

0.0

-54.7

-29.8

-34.4

0.0

-0.4

Alt. 1

Yr. 100

-2.8

0.0

-8.2

541.0

-43.3

21.7

146.4

3.0

503.4

340.5

341.3

-55.9

-27.8

28.6

-17.6

0.0

25.9

-13.3

173.0

0.0

0.0

Alt. 2

Yr. 100

-2.8

0.0

9.5

395.4

-44.4

21.7

193.5

57.7

463.8

383.2

352.5

-55.2

-33.3

12.0

-24.2

0.0

12.0

-14.8

176.4

0.0

0.0

Alt. 3

Yr. 100

-2.8

0.0

-0.6

635.3

-8.1

-28.7

192.6

68.6

366.8

1063.3

295.4

-55.6

-33.5

5.5

-27.0

0.0

35.2

-9.9

168.4

0.0

0.0

Alt. 4

Yr. 100

-2.8

0.0

-2.6

636.7

-7.6

-28.7

201.5

77.7

367.2

1062.6

304.8

-55.5

-34.0

5.3

-26.1

0.0

38.0

-10.5

167.2

0.0

0.0

A

Yr. 

62

-2

18

7

38

96

31

-5

-3

-2

2

-1

17

'Historical trend = percent change between historical and current periods.

Future trend = percent change between current period and year 100 for each alternative.

2Amount adjusted in Alternative 2 due to errors in modeling.
Table 2.34 —Areal extent (percentage) of terrestrial communities for minimum, maximum, and initial his

future projections for year 100 for preliminary draft EIS alternatives for all ownerships within the Upper C

Historical Historical Historical

Terrestrial Community Minimum Maximum Initial

Current

Level

Alt. 1

Yr. 100

Alt. 2

Yr. 100

Alt. 3

Yr. 100

Alt. 4

Yr. 100

^

Agricultural

Alpine

Early-serai Montane Forest

Early-serai Lower Montane Forest

Early-serai Subalpine Forest

Exotic Herbland

1

Late-serai Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Single-layer

Mid-serai Montane Forest

Mid-serai Lower Montane Forest

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest

Riparian Herbland

2

Riparian Shrubland

2

Riparian Woodland

2

Rock/Barren

Upland Herbland

Upland Shrubland

Upland Woodland

Urban

Water

0.0

0.1

8.4

1.5

1.1

0.0

4.8

1.0

1.3

2.7

1.6

0.3

13.0

3.4

3.2

0.2

0.4

1.2

0.4

12.3

24.8

1.5

0.0

0.7

0.0

0.1

11.3

2.1

2.2

0.0

8.6

2.1

1.8

4.0

3.7

0.9

16.8

4.2

3.7

1.0

0.8

1.6

0.4

17.2

32.5

1.8

0.0

0.7

0.0

0.1

11.3

1.5

2.2

0.0

4.8

1.0

1.8

2.8

1.6

0.9

14.3

3.7

3.6

—

—

—

0.4

13.1

32.5

1.5

0.0

0.7

12.5

0.1

9.1

0.2

2.7

2.6

2.1

0.5

0.6

0.1

0.6

1.4

23.5

6.0

4.4

—

—

—

0.4

5.9

22.8

1.0

0.1

0.7

12.2

0.1

8.3

1.3

1.5

2.6

5.1

0.5

3.5

0.6

2.6

0.6

16.9

7.7

3.6

0.1

0.1

0.8

0.4

7.4

19.8

2.7

0.1

0.7

12.2

0.1

9.9

1.0

i.5

4.3

6.0

0.7

3.3

0.7

2.6

0.6

15.7

6.7

3.3

0.2

0.1

1.0

0.4

6.6

19.5

2.7

0.1

0.7

12.2

0.1

9.0

1.5

2.5

1.9

6.0

0.8

2.7

1.7

2.3

0.6

15.6

6.3

3.2

0.1

0.1

0.9

0.4

8.0

20.6

2.6

0.1

0.7

12.2

0.1

8.8

1.5

2.5

1.9

6.2

0.8

2.7

1.7

2.4

0.6

15.5

6.3

3.2

0.1

0.1

0.9

0.4

8.2

20.4

2.6

0.1

0.7

'Amount adjusted in Alternative 2 due to errors in modeling.

!Due to problems with resolution of historic mapping, the historic to current trend is not applicable. However, the future changes are somewhat 
Table 2.35 — Historical and future trends' of the areal extent of terrestrial communities for BLM- and FS-

in the Upper Columbia River Basin. Values are expressed as percent change.

Historical

Terrestrial Community Trend

Alpine

Early-serai Montane Forest

Early-serai Lower Montane Forest

Early-serai Subalpine Forest

Exotic Herbland

2

Late-serai Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Single-layer

Mid-serai Montane Forest

Mid-serai Lower Montane Forest

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest

Rock/Barren

Upland Herbland

Upland Shrubland

Upland Woodland

Urban

Water

0.0

-13.5

-81.0

17.1

N/A

3

-43.9

-62.1

-42.0

-92.1

-57.0

40.9

37.7

30.3

20.3

0.0

-16.0

-7.7

-50.4

N/A

0.0

Alt. 1

Yr. 100

0.0

-9.9

389.1

-45.4

-1.4

100.6

20.9

246.5

393.6

283.5

-55.2

-21.2

50.9

-21.3

0.0

21.1

-10.1

190.3

0.0

0.0

Alt. 2

Yr. 100

0.0

-16.8

275.1

-44.2

-1.4

168.4

104.0

286.8

219.3

303.9

-54.6

-23.6

26.5

-23.6

0.0

-5.2

-12.2

196.2

0.0

0.0

Alt. 3

Yr. 100

0.0

0.8

507.6

-6.4

-77.6

153.9

125.4

93.0

1470.0

236.0

-54.9

-30.0

-0.9

-32.2

0.0

36.9

-5.6

182.3

0.0

0.0

Alt. 4

Yr. 100

0.0

-2.1

509.4

-5.8

-77.6

164.2

139.9

93.4

1468.9

245.7

-54.8

-30.7

-1.1

-31.1

0.0

41.8

-6.4

180.3

0.0

0.0

Alt

Yr. 1

0

0

489

-24

-35

139

130

118

1316

260

-54

-27

4

-3

0

20

-6

193

0

0

'Historical trend = percent change between historical and current periods.

Future trend = percent change between current period and year 100 for each alternative.

'Amount adjusted in Alternative 2 due to errors in modeling.

3NA = Not Applicable.
Table 2.36 — Areal extent (percentage) of terrestrial communities for minimum, maximum, and initial hist

future projections for year 100 for preliminary draft EIS alternatives for BLM- and FS-administered lands w

Columbia River Basin.

Historical Historical Historical

Terrestrial Community Minimum Maximum Initial

Alpine

Early-serai Montane Forest

Early-serai Lower Montane Forest

Early-serai Subalpine Forest

Exotic HerblancT

Late-serai Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Lower Montane Forest Single-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Multi-layer

Late-serai Subalpine Forest Single-layer

Mid-serai Montane Forest

Mid-serai Lower Montane Forest

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest

Riparian Herbland

2

Riparian Shrubland

2

Riparian Woodland

2

Rock/Barren

Upland Herbland

Upland Shrubland

Upland Woodland

Urban

Water

0.1

9.3

1.2

1.6

0.0

5.3

1.3

1.1

2.1

2.2

0.5

15.6

2.9

4.5

0.0

0.1

0.9

0.7

6.9

23.7

1.6

0.0

0.1

0.1

12.6

1.8

3.5

0.0

10.1

2.3

1.6

3.7

5.2

1.5

20.9

3.9

5.5

0.2

0.1

1.0

0.7

12.7

30.3

1.9

0.0

0.1

0.1

12.6

1.4

3.5

0.0

5.3

1.3

1.5

2.1

2.2

1.5

18.7

3.5

5.3

—

—

—

0.7

6.9

30.3

1.9

0.0

0.1

Current

Level

0.1

10.9

0.3

4.1

2.9

3.0

0.5

0.9

0.2

0.9

2.1

25.7

4.5

6.4

—

—

—

0.7

5.8

28.0

1.0

0.0

0.1

Alt. 1

Yr. 100

r*ar

0.1

9.8

1.3

2.2

2.9

6.0

0.6

3.0

0.8

3.6

0.9

20.3

6.8

5.0

0.1

0.1

0.7

0.7

7.0

25.1

2.8

0.0

0.1

Alt. 2

Yr. 100

centage —

0.1

9.1

1.0

2.3

2.9

8.0

1.0

3.4

0.5

3.8

0.9

19.7

5.7

4.9

0.2

0.1

1.0

0.7

5.5

24.6

2.8

0.0

0.1

Alt. 3

Yr. 100

0.1

11.0

1.6

3.8

0.7

7.6

1.1

1.7

2.6

3.2

0.9

18.0

4.5

4.3

0.1

0.1

0.9

0.7

8.0

26.4

2.7

0.0

0.1

Alt. 4

Yr. 100

0.1

10.7

1.6

3.8

0.7

7.9

1.2

1.7

2.6

3.3

0.9

17.8

4.5

4.4

0.1

0.1

0.8

0.7

8.3

26.2

2.7

0.0

0.1

'Amount adjusted in Alternative 2 due to errors in modeling.

2Due to problems with resolution of historic mapping, the historic to current trend is not applicable. However, the future changes are somewhat use
Upper Columbia River Basin: All Ownerships —We detected ecologically significant class

changes between current and year 100 for 62 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region

and stratum (table 2.33). The areal extent of six

communities would increase by more than 100

percent, whereas there would be declines of at

least 50 percent in the areas of three communities:

late-serai subalpine single-layer forest, and riparian

herbland and riparian woodland.

Historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 68 percent of the communities, whereas historic to current significant declines would

continue for three others: riparian herbland and

riparian woodland, and upland shrubland. Conversely, an historic to current significant increasing

trend would continue for exotic herblands and

mid-serai lower montane forest types.

Under Alternative 2, the areal extents of 58 percent of the terrestrial communities on all lands in

the Upper Columbia River Basin would not likely

occur within their historical ranges in 100 years

(table 2.34).

Upper Columbia River Basin: BLM- and FS-

^

administere idr d Lands —We detected ecologically

significant class changes between current and year

100 for 62 percent of the terrestrial communities

in this region and stratum (table 2.35). Seven

communities would increase by more than 100

percent, whereas the late-serai subalpine singlelayer forest community would decrease by more

than 50 percent.

Historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 73 percent of the communities. Historic to current significant increasing trends

would continue for exotic herblands and mid-serai

lower montane forests.

Under Alternative 2, the areal extents of at least 50

percent of the terrestrial communities on BLMand FS-administered lands in the Upper Columbia

River Basin would not likely occur within their

historic ranges in 100 years (table 2.36).

Alternative 3

ICBEMP Assessment Area: All Ownerships —

Alternative 3 would result in ecologically significant trends across 54 percent of the terrestrial

communities in this region and stratum (table

2.25). Five communities would increase by

approximately 100 percent or more, whereas there

would be declines of more than 50 percent in

three communities: late-serai single-layer subalpine forest, and the riparian herbland and riparian woodland types.

Trends would reverse for 9 of 17 communities

that had significant historic to current trends.

Significant losses would continue for all three

riparian communities and the upland shrubland.

An increasing trend of the exotic herblands and

upland woodlands would continue.

Under Alternative 3, the areal extents of 71 percent of the communities on all lands in the Basin

would not likely occur within their historical

range by year 100 (table 2.26).

ICBEMP Assessment Area: BLM- and FSadministered Lands —We detected ecologically

significant trends across 50 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region and stratum

(table 2.27). There would be increases of more

than 100 percent in four communities: early-serai

montane, late-serai lower montane single layer,

late-serai subalpine multi-layer, and upland herbland. Conversely, there would be decreases of

more than 50 percent in two other communities:

exotic herblands and the late-serai single-layer

subalpine forest type.

Trends would reverse for 82 percent of the communities that had historic to current significant

changes.

Under Alternative 3, the areal extents of 42 percent of the terrestrial communities on BLM- and

FS-administered lands in the Basin would not

likely occur within their historical ranges by year

100 (table 2.28).

Landscape Ecology 137
Eastside EIS: All Ownerships —We detected

ecologically significant class changes between current and year 100 for 58 percent of the terrestrial

communities in this region and stratum (table

2.29). There would be increases of more than 100

percent in the areal extent of four communities:

early-serai lower montane, exotic herbland, lateserai multi-layer lower montane, and upland herbland. Conversely, the late-serai single-layer montane and subalpine types would decrease by at

least 50 percent.

Historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 63 percent of the communities. However, historic to current significant declines would

continue for two communities: late-serai singlelayer subalpine, and upland shrubland. Conversely, an historic to current significant increasing

trend would continue for the exotic herbland

community.

Under Alternative 3, the areal extents of 75 percent of the terrestrial communities on all lands in

the Eastside EIS area of the Basin would not likely

occur within their historical ranges in 100 years

(table 2.30).

Eastside EIS: BLM- and FS-administered

Lands —We detected ecologically significant class

changes between current and year 100 for half of

the terrestrial communities in this region and stratum (table 2.31). The areal extent would increase

by more than 100 percent in three communities:

early-serai lower montane forest, late-serai singlelayer lower montane, and upland herbland. There

would be declines of more than 50 percent in two

communities: late-serai single-layer montane and

subalpine forest types.

Historic to current significant trends would reverse

for 73 percent of the communities. Historic to current significant declines would continue for the

late-serai single-layer subalpine forest type.

Under Alternative 3, the areal extents of 42 percent of the terrestrial communities on BLM- and

FS-administered lands within the Eastside EIS

area of the Basin would not likely occur within

their historical ranges in 100 years (table 2.32).

Upper Columbia River Basin: All Ownerships — We detected ecologically significant class

changes between current and year 100 for 63 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region

and stratum (table 2.33). There would be increases of more than 100 percent in the areal extents

of six communities: early-serai lower montane

forest; late-serai multi-layer montane, lower montane, and subalpine; late-serai single-layer lower

montane; and upland woodland. In fact, lateserai single-layer lower montane would increase

by more than 1 ,000 percent. Conversely, there

would be at least 50 percent declines in three

communities: late-serai single-layer subalpine forest, and the riparian herbland and riparian woodland types.

Historic to current significant trends would reverse

for 74 percent of the communities. However, historic to current period significant declines would

continue for three communities: riparian herbland

and riparian woodland types, and upland shrubland. Conversely, the historic to current increasing

trend for the mid-serai lower montane would

continue.

Under Alternative 3, the areal extents of 62 percent of the terrestrial communities on all lands in

the Upper Columbia River Basin would not likely

occur within their historical ranges in 100 years

(table 2.34).

Ueppr Columbi e a River Basin: BLM- and FSadministere dmi d Lands — We detected ecologically

significant class changes between current and year

100 for 58 percent of the terrestrial communities

in this region and stratum (table 2.35). The areal

extents of six communities would increase by

more than 100 percent; in fact, the late-serai

single-layer lower montane forest community

would increase by almost 1,500 percent. Conversely, the exotic herbland and late-serai singlelayer subalpine forest would decrease by approximately 50 percent or more.

Historic to current period significant trends

would reverse for 87 percent of the communities.

138 Landscape Ecology
Under Alternative 3, the areal extents of 42 percent of the terrestrial communities on BLM- and

FS-administered lands in the Upper Columbia

River Basin would not likely occur within their

historical ranges in 100 years (table 2.36).

Alternative 4

ICBEMP Assessment Areas: All Ownerships — Ecologically significant trends between

the current period and year 100 were detected for

58 percent of the terrestrial communities in this

region and stratum (table 2.25). Five communities

would increase by more than 100 percent, whereas decreases of more than 50 percent would be

expected in three communities: late-serai singlelayer subalpine forest, and the riparian herbland

and riparian woodland types.

Trends would reverse for 59 percent of the communities that had significant trends from historic

to current. Historic to current period significant

declines would be expected to continue in all

three riparian communities and the upland shrubland type, whereas increases would be expected to

continue in the exotic herbland community.

Under Alternative 4, 71 percent of the terrestrial

communities on all lands in the Basin would not

likely occur at levels within their historical ranges

in 100 years (table 2.26).

ICBEMP Assessment Area: BLM- and FSadministered Lands — Under Alternative 4, we

detected ecologically significant trends for 54 percent of the communities (table 2.27). There

would be increases of at least 100 percent in the

areal extents of four communities: early-serai

lower montane, late-serai single-layer lower montane, late-serai multi-layer subalpine, and upland

herbland. Conversely, there would be decreases of

nearly 50 percent or more in two communities:

exotic herbland and the late-serai single-layer subalpine forest type.

Trends for 9 of the 11 communities that had significant historic to current period changes would

reverse.

Under Alternative 4, the areal extents of 42 percent of the communities on BLM- and FS-administered lands in the Basin would be expected to

occur outside of their predicted historical range in

100 years (table 2.28).

Eastside EIS: All Ownerships —We detected

ecologically significant class changes between current and year 100 for 58 percent of the terrestrial

communities in this region and stratum (table

2.29). There would be increases of more than 100

percent in the areal extent of four communities:

early-serai lower montane, exotic herbland, lateserai multi-layer lower montane, and upland herbland. The areas of late-serai single-layer montane

and subalpine types would decrease by at least 50

percent.

Historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 63 percent of the communities. However, historic to current significant declines would

continue for five communities: late-serai singlelayer subalpine, all three riparian types, and upland shrubland. Conversely, an historic to current

significant increasing trend for the exotic herbland

community would continue.

Under Alternative 4, the areal extents of 75 percent of the terrestrial communities on all lands in

the Eastside EIS area within the Basin would not

likely occur within their historical ranges in 100

years (table 2.30).

Eastside EIS: BLM- and PS-administered

Lands —We detected ecologically significant class

changes between current and year 100 for 54 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region

and stratum (table 2.31). There would be increases of more than 100 percent in the areal extents of

three communities: early-serai lower montane forest, late-serai single-layer lower montane, and

upland herbland; whereas there would be declines

of approximately 50 percent or more in three

other communities: exotic herbland and late-serai

single-layer montane and subalpine forest types.

While historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 73 percent of the communities, historic

to current significant declines would continue for

the late-serai single-layer subalpine forest type.

Landscape Ecology 139
Under Alternative 4, the areal extents of 42 percent of the terrestrial communities on BLM- and

FS-administered lands within the Eastside EIS

area of the Basin would not likely occur within

their historical ranges in 100 years (table 2.32).

Upper Columbia River Basin: All Ownerships —We detected ecologically significant class

changes between current and year 100 for 63 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region

and stratum (table 2.33). Increases of more than

100 percent would be expected in the areal

extents of six communities: early-serai lower montane forest; late-serai multi-layer montane, lower

montane, and subalpine; late-serai single-layer

lower montane; and the upland woodland. In

fact, late-serai single-layer lower montane would

increase more than 1,000 percent. Conversely,

there would be declines of more than 50 percent

in the late-serai single-layer subalpine forest type.

Historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 74 percent of the communities. While

historic to current significant declines would continue for the upland shrubland, the historic to

current increasing trend would continue for the

mid-serai lower montane forest type.

Under Alternative 4, the areal extents of 62 percent of the terrestrial communities on all lands in

the Upper Columbia River Basin would not likely

occur within their historical ranges in 100 years

(table 2.34).

Upper Columbia River Basin: BLM- and FSadministered Lands —We detected ecologically

significant class changes between current and year

100 for 58 percent of the terrestrial communities

in this region and stratum (table 2.35)- The areal

extents of six communities would increase by

more than 100 percent; in fact, the late-serai

single-layer lower montane forest community

would increase by nearly 1,500 percent. Conversely, the exotic herbland and late-serai singlelayer subalpine forest communities would decrease

by at least 50 percent.

Under Alternative 4, the areal extents of 42 percent of the terrestrial communities on BLM- and

FS-administered lands in the Upper Columbia

River Basin would not likely occur within their

historical ranges in 100 years (table 2.36).

Alternative 5

ICBEMP Assessment Area: All Ownerships —

In this region and stratum, 58 percent of the terrestrial communities were predicted to have significant ecological trends by year 100 of Alternative 5

(table 2.25). There would be increases between the

current period and year 100 of more than 100 percent in four communities: early-serai lower montane forest, late-serai single- and multi-layer lower

montane forest, and late-serai multi-layer subalpine forest. Conversely, three other communities

would decline by at least 50 percent: late-serai single-layer subalpine forest, and the riparian herbland and riparian woodland types.

While trends would reverse for 59 percent of the

communities that had significant historic to current period trends, declining trends would continue for all three riparian communities and the

upland shrublands through year 100. The significant historic to current increasing trend of exotic

herblands and upland woodlands would continue.

Under Alternative 5, the availabilities of 71 percent of the terrestrial communities on all lands in

the Basin would not likely occur within their historical ranges by year 100 (table 2.26).

ICBEMP Assessment Area: BLM- and FSadministered lands —We observed ecologically

significant trends for 54 percent of the terrestrial

communities on BLM- and FS-administered

lands in this region and stratum (table 2.27).

Increases of more than 100 percent would occur

between the current period and year 100 in three

communities: early-serai and late-serai single-layer

lower montane forest and the late-serai multi-layer

subalpine forest. Conversely, decreases of more

than 50 percent would occur in the late-serai

single-layer subalpine forest type.

Under Alternative 5, the availability of 46 percent

of the terrestrial communities on BLM- and FSadministered lands in the Basin would not likely

140 Landscape Ecology
occur within their expected historical ranges in

100 years (table 2.28).

Eastside EIS: All Ownerships —We detected

ecologically significant class changes between current and year 100 for 58 percent of the terrestrial

communities in this region and stratum (table

2.29). The areal extents would increase by more

than 100 percent in four communities: early-serai

and late-serai multi-layer lower montane, exotic

herblands and the upland herbland, whereas the

late-serai single-layer montane and subalpine, as

well as the riparian woodland type, would

decrease by at least 50 percent.

Historic to current period significant trends

would reverse for 63 percent of the communities.

However, historic to current significant declines

would continue for five communities: late-serai

single-layer subalpine, all three riparian types,

and the upland shrublands. Conversely, an historic to current significant increasing trend

would continue for the exotic herbland

community.

Under Alternative 5, the areal extents of 75 percent of the terrestrial communities of all lands in

the Eastside EIS area of the Basin would not likely

occur within their historical ranges in 100 years

(table 2.30).

Eastside EIS: BLM- and FS-administered

Lands —We detected ecologically significant class

changes between current and year 100 of

Alternative 5 for 54 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region and stratum (table 2.31).

The areal extents would increase by more than

100 percent in three communities: early-serai and

late-serai single-layer lower montane and the

upland herbland; there would be declines of more

than 50 percent in two other communities: lateserai single-layer montane and subalpine forest

typesHistoric to current significant trends would

reverse for 73 percent of the communities, but

historic to current significant declines would continue for the late-serai single-layer subalpine forest

typeAlternative 5, the areal extents of 42 percent of the terrestrial communities on the BLMand FS-administered lands within the Eastside

EIS area of the Basin would not likely occur within their historical ranges in 100 years (table 2.32).

Upper Columbia River Basin: All Ownerships —We detected ecologically significant class

changes between current and year 100 for 63 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region

and stratum (table 2.33). The areal extents would

increase by more than 100 percent in six communities: early-serai lower montane forest; late-serai

multi-layer montane, lower montane, and subalpine; late-serai single-layer lower montane; and

upland woodland. In fact, late-serai single-layer

lower montane would increase by 960 percent.

Conversely, areal extents would decline by more

than 50 percent in three communities: late-serai

single-layer subalpine forest, and the riparian

herbland and riparian woodland types.

Historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 74 percent of the communities.

Historic to current significant declines would continue for only three communities: the riparian

herbland and riparian woodland types and the

upland shrubland. Conversely, the historic to current increasing trend for the mid-serai lower montane would continue through year 100.

Under Alternative 5, the areal extents of 58 percent of the terrestrial communities on all lands in

the Upper Columbia River Basin would not likely

occur within their historical ranges in 100 years

(table 2.34).

Upper Columbia River Basin: BLM- and FSadministered Lands —We detected ecologically

significant class changes between current and year

100 for 62 percent of the terrestrial communities

in this region and stratum (table 2.35). The areal

extents of seven communities would increase by

more than 100 percent; in fact, the late-serai single-layer lower montane forest community would

increase by approximately 1,300 percent. Conversely, the late-serai single-layer subalpine forest

type would decrease by at least 50 percent.

Landscape Ecology 141
Historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 73 percent of the communities. However, the significant historical increase of the midserai lower montane forest would continue

through year 100.

Under Alternative 5, the areal extents of 38 percent of the terrestrial communities on BLM- and

FS-administered lands in the Upper Columbia

River Basin would not likely occur within their

historical ranges in 100 years (table 2.36).

Alternative 6

ICBEMP Assessment Area; All Ownerships —

Ecologically significant trends were observed

across 50 percent of all terrestrial communities

within the Basin (table 2.25). The areal extent of

five communities would increase by more than

100 percent: early-serai and late-serai single- and

multi-layer lower montane, late-serai multi-layer

subalpine, and upland herbland. Conversely, there

would be decreases of at least 50 percent in three

others: late-serai single-layer subalpine forest, and

the riparian herbland and riparian woodland

types.

Historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 65 percent of the communities by year

100 of Alternative 6. However, all three riparian

types and the upland shrubland communities

would be expected to continue their historical

declines through year 100. Conversely, the availability of exotic herblands and upland woodland

communities would be expected to continue to

increase.

Under Alternative 6, the availability of 67 percent

of the terrestrial communities on all lands in the

Basin would not likely occur within the expected

historical ranges in 100 years (table 2.26).

ICBEMP Assessment Area: BLM- and FSadministered Land —We detected ecologically

significant trends with 54 percent of the terrestrial

communities on BLM- and FS-administered lands

in this region and stratum (table 2.27). Four communities would increase by more than 100 percent: early-serai and late-serai single-layer lower

montane forest, late-serai multi-layer subalpine,

and upland herbland. Conversely, two communities would decrease by at least 50 percent: exotic

herbland and late-serai single-layer subalpine

forest.

Trends would reverse on 9 of 11 communities

that had significant historical trends.

Under Alternative 6, the availabilities of 45 percent of the terrestrial communities on BLM- and

FS-administered lands in the Basin would not

likely occur within their expected historical ranges

by year 100 (table 2.28).

Eastside EIS: All Ownerships —We detected

ecologically significant class changes between current and year 100 for 63 percent of the terrestrial

communities in this region and stratum (table

2.29). The areal extents of four communities

would increase by more than 100 percent: earlyserai lower montane, exotic herbland, late-serai

multi-layer lower montane, and upland herbland;

whereas the late-serai single-layer montane and

subalpine types would decrease by at least 50

percent.

Historic to current significant trends would reverse

for 63 percent of the communities. However, historic to current significant declines would continue

for two others: late-serai single-layer subalpine, and

the upland shrubland. Conversely, an historic to

current significant increasing trend would continue for the exotic herbland community.

Under Alternative 6, the areal extents of 75 percent of the terrestrial communities on all lands

within the Eastside EIS area of the Basin would

not likely occur within their historical ranges in

100 years (table 2.30).

Eastside EIS: BLM- and FS-administered

Lands —We detected ecologically significant class

changes between current and year 100 of Alternative 6 for 58 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region and stratum (table 2.31). The

areal extents of three communities would increase

by more than 100 percent: early-serai and lateserai single-layer lower montane and the upland

142 Landscape Ecology
herblands; whereas the area of two communities

would decline by more than 50 percent: late-serai

single-layer montane and subalpine forests.

Historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 73 percent of the communities. However, historic to current significant decline would

continue for late-serai single-layer subalpine

forests.

Under Alternative 6, the areal extents of 42 percent of the terrestrial communities on BLM- and

FS-administered lands within the Eastside EIS

area of the Basin would not likely occur within

their historical ranges in 100 years (table 2.32).

Upper Columbia River Basin: All Ownerships —We detected ecologically significant class

changes between current and year 100 for 67 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region

and stratum (table 2.33). Increases of more than

100 percent would occur in the areal extents of six

communities: early-serai lower montane, late-serai

multi-layer montane and subalpine, late-serai single- and multi-layer lower montane, and upland

woodland. In fact, late-serai single-layer lower

montane would increase by approximately 930

percent. Conversely, declines of more than 50 percent would occur in the area of three communities: late-serai single-layer subalpine forest, and the

riparian herbland and riparian woodland types.

Historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 74 percent of the communities. However, historic to current significant declines would

continue for three others: riparian herbland and

riparian woodland types, and the upland shrubland. Conversely, the historical increasing trend

for the mid-serai lower montane would continue

through year 100.

Under Alternative 6, the areal extents of 58 percent of the terrestrial communities on all lands in

the Upper Columbia River Basin would not likely

occur within their historical ranges in 100 years

(table 2.34).

Upper Columbia River Basin: BLM- and FSministered Lands —We detected ecologically

significant class changes between current and year

100 for 63 percent of the terrestrial communities

in this region and stratum (table 2.35). The areal

extents of seven communities would increase by

more than 100 percent; in fact, the late-serai single-layer lower montane forest community would

increase by nearly 1,300 percent. Conversely, the

exotic herblands and late-serai single-layer subalpine forest communities would decrease by at

least 50 percent.

Historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 80 percent of the communities. The

significant historical increase of mid-serai lower

montane forest would continue through year 100.

Under Alternative 6, the areal extents of 29 percent of the terrestrial communities on BLM- and

FS-administered lands in the Upper Columbia

River Basin would not likely occur within their

historical ranges in 100 years (table 2.36).

Alternative 7

ICBEMP Assessment Area: All Ownerships —

We detected ecologically significant trends for 50

percent of all terrestrial communities across the

Basin (table 2.25). Increases of more than 200

percent would occur in three communities: earlyserai and late-serai multi-layer lower montane forest, and late-serai multi-layer subalpine forest.

Conversely, decreases of at least 50 percent would

occur in three others: early-serai subalpine forest,

late-serai single-layer subalpine forest, and riparian

woodland. If we had had time to improve the

simulation of this alternative, we believe the percentage increases and decreases would be dampened considerably (see the previous section on

"Simulation Strategies").

Trends for 71 percent of the communities that

had historic to current significant changes would

reverse. However, all three riparian communities

and the upland shrubland would continue to have

significant declines through year 100. Conversely,

the exotic herbland community would continue

to increase.

Landscape Ecology 143
Under Alternative 7, the areal extents of 54 percent of the communities on all lands in the Basin

would not likely occur within their expected historical ranges by year 100 (table 2.26).

ICBEMP Assessment Area: BLM- and FSadministered Lands —We detected significant

ecological trends across 54 percent of the terrestrial communities occurring on BLM- and FSadministered lands in this region and stratum

(table 2.27). Four communities would increase by

more than 100 percent: early-serai and late-serai

multi-layer lower montane forest, late-serai multilayer subalpine forest, and upland herbland. Conversely, two communities would decrease by at

least 50 percent: early-serai and late-serai singlelayer subalpine forests.

Trends would reverse for 8 of 11 communities

that experienced significant historical trends.

Under Alternative 7, the areal extents of 42 percent

of the communities on BLM- and FS-administered

lands in the Basin would not likely occur within

their historical ranges in 100 years (table 2.28).

Eastside EIS: All Ownerships —We detected

ecologically significant class changes between current and year 100 for 58 percent of the terrestrial

communities in this region and stratum (table

2.29). The areal extents of five communities would

increase by more than 100 percent: early-serai and

late-serai multi-layer lower montane, exotic herbland, late-serai multi-layer subalpine, and upland

herbland. However, the late-serai single-layer communities of the montane and subalpine forests

would decrease by at least 50 percent.

Historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 63 percent of the communities. However, historic to current significant declines would

continue for three communities: late-serai singlelayer lower montane forest and subalpine forest,

and upland shrubland types. Conversely, an historic to current significant increasing trend for the

exotic herbland community would continue.

Under Alternative 7, the areal extents of 71 percent of the terrestrial communities on all lands

within the Eastside EIS area of the Basin would

not likely occur within their historical ranges after

100 years (table 2.30).

Eastside EIS: BLM- and PS-administered

Lands —We detected ecologically significant class

changes between current and year 100 of Alternative 7 for 58 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region and stratum (table 2.31). The

areal extents of three communities would increase

by more than 100 percent: early-serai and lateserai multi-layer lower montane forest, late-serai

multi-layer subalpine forest and upland herbland.

However, declines of more than 50 percent would

occur in two communities: late-serai single-layer

montane and subalpine forest types.

Historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 73 percent of the communities. However, historic to current significant declines would

continue for late-serai single-layer lower montane

and subalpine forest types.

Under Alternative 7, the areal extents of 42 percent of the terrestrial communities on BLM- and

FS-administered lands within the Eastside EIS

area of the Basin would not likely occur within

their historical ranges in 100 years (table 2.32).

Upper Columbia River Basin; All Ownerships —We detected ecologically significant class

changes between current and year 100 for 63 percent of the terrestrial communities in this region

and stratum (table 2.33). The areal extents of

eight communities would increase by more than

100 percent, and further they would increase by

more than 400 percent in five communities: earlyserai, and late-serai single- and multi-layer lower

montane forest; and late-serai multi-layer subalpine forest. Conversely, there would be declines

of more than 50 percent in the area of four communities: early-serai and late-serai single-layer subalpine forest, and the riparian herbland and riparian woodland types.

Historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 74 percent of the communities. However, historic to current significant declines would

continue for three communities: the riparian

144 Landscape Ecology
herbland and riparian woodland types, and

upland shrubland. Conversely, the historical

increasing trend for the mid-serai lower montane

would continue through year 100.

Under Alternative 7, the areal extents of 58 percent of the terrestrial communities on all lands in

the Upper Columbia River Basin would not likely

occur within their historical ranges in 100 years

(table 2.34).

Upper Columbia River Basin: BLM- and FSadministered Lands —We detected ecologically

significant class changes between current and year

100 for 71 percent of the terrestrial communities

in this region and stratum (table 2.35). The areal

extents of six communities would increase by

more than 100 percent. Conversely, three communities would decrease by at least 50 percent:

early-serai and late-serai single-layer subalpine and

exotic herbland.

Historic to current significant trends would

reverse for 80 percent of the communities. The

significant historical increase of mid-serai lower

montane forest would continue through year 100.

Under Alternative 7, the areal extents of 42 percent of the terrestrial communities on BLM- and

FS-administered lands in the Upper Columbia

River Basin would not likely occur within their

historical ranges in 100 years (table 2.36).

Discussion

The initial historical estimates of community type

area generally depict the Basin's composition during the latter 1800s. Although believed to be generally correct, the estimates represent only single

points that are more like averages of the Basins

composition. Using this single historical estimate

as a baseline to estimate the trend of a habitat area

could give unrealistic results.

We believe that a comparison with an historical

range, rather than a single point estimate, provides a more realistic accounting of habitat

changes. We assume that native biota adapted to

the historical dynamic landscapes. Further, we recognize that few, if any, species are solely dependent on the areal extent of a single vegetation

community. Instead, we believe that the fitness of

most species is more closely associated with the

availability and juxtaposition of several, to many,

community types within some geographical area.

Considering these factors and assumptions, we

believe our coarse-filter approach of basing habitat

change on an historical range provides a useful

data set for estimating the persistence probabilities

of native biota. When the simulations project that a

community type would occur well above its historical

range, those species whose fitness is closely correlated

with the availability of that type would have substantially fewer risks to their persistence. Conversely, when

projection of a community type indicates a likelihood

of occurrence well below its historical range within

some geographical area, there would be probable substantial risks to the persistence of correlated species.

Differences among the alternatives are discussed

below by EIS area and terrestrial community.

Comparisons are included about both ownership

strata, including all lands and BLM- and FSadministered lands within each EIS area.

Terrestrial communities are grouped by montane

forests, subalpine forests, upland communities,

riparian communities, and exotic herblands.

Alternative projections are not addressed for the

Basin as a whole, nor for BLM-and FS-administered lands within the Basin. Also not addressed

are differences among alternatives for the five

communities that remained constant through our

modeling projections: agriculture, alpine,

barren/rock, urban, and water.

Additional detail about the treatment activities, disturbances, and subsequent transitions that provided

a basis for our terrestrial community projections is

included in this chapter in the discussion about

vegetation response and disturbance patterns.

Because geographic and ownership stratum vary,

the trends are often inconsistent between the

Basin as a whole and the two EIS areas, and

among the ownership strata of those regions. For

example, trends of the mid-serai montane forest

Landscape Ecology 145
community are substantially different between the

Eastside EIS and the Upper Columbia River Basin

analysis areas. In the Eastside EIS area as a whole,

the area! extent of the mid-serai montane community type would decline between 4 and 14 percent

for all alternative projections, whereas its area

would increase across BLM- and FS-administered

lands within the Eastside EIS area.

Similarly, in the Upper Columbia River Basin,

die area of die mid-serai montane community

would decline from 28 to 40 percent across die

area as a whole, but declines across BLM- and FSadministered lands within the Upper Columbia

River Basin would be less substantial, from 21 to

34 percent.

Eastside EIS Area

Montane Forests —

Early-Serai Lower Montane Forest. The 100-

year projections of all alternatives would increase

the areal extent of the early-serai lower montane

forest community to a level within its historical

range across all ownerships, and across BLM- and

FS-administered lands within the Eastside EIS

area (figure 2.29; tables 2.30 and 2.32). For both

strata, Alternatives 3 through 6 had comparable

projections for this community, followed in areal

extent by Alternatives 1, 2, and 7.

Mid-serai Lower Montane Forest. For the

Eastside EIS area as a whole, none of the alternatives would decrease mid-serai lower montane forest to a level within its historical range (figure

2.30; table 2.30). However, the 100-year projection for Alternatives 3 through 7 showed either a

decrease or a very slight increase in the areal

extent of this community, such that the projections were within the historical range across BLMand FS-administered lands within the Eastside

EIS (table 2.31 and 2.32). All restoration alternatives had comparable projections. Alternatives 1

and 2 had areal projections that exceeded the historical range on BLM- and FS-administered lands

within the Eastside EIS area.

Late-serai Lower Montane Single-layer Forest.

The 100-year projections of Alternatives 1, 2, and

7 would decrease the extent of this community

and projections would lie below the historical

range for both ownership strata (figure 2.31;

tables 2.30 and 2.32). Alternatives 3 through 6,

however, would increase this community's areal

extent to within its historical range on BLM- and

FS-administered lands within the Eastside EIS

area, but projections for the alternatives across all

ownerships still fell well below the historical

range. There were no detectable measurable differences among Alternatives 3 through 6.

Late-serai Lower Montane Multi-layer Forest.

The 100-year projections of this community's area

across all ownerships within the Eastside EIS area

were well above its historical range for all alternatives (figure 2.32; table 2.30). However, on BLMand FS-administered lands, this community's areal

extent would remain within its historical range for

Alternatives 3 through 6 (table 2.32). Alternatives

1, 2, and 7 were projected to exceed the historical

range of this community on BLM- and FSadministered lands.

Early-serai Montane Forest. All alternatives

would decrease this community's areal extent from

the current period (figure 2.33; tables 2.30 and

2.32). Across all ownerships, none of the alternative projections of this community type fell within

its historical range. However, on BLM- and FSadministered lands, the 100-year projections for

Alternatives 3 through 6 were within their historical range, whereas the outcomes for Alternatives

1,2, and 7 were below.

Mid-serai Montane Forest. No alternative would

be effective in reducing this community's areal

extent to within its historical range across either

ownership stratum within the Eastside EIS area

(figure 2.34; tables 2.30 and 2.32). There were

very few differences among the 100-year projections for any of the alternatives.

Late-serai Montane Single-layer Forest. All

alternatives would significantly decrease this community's areal extent to a level well below its historical range (figure 2.35; tables 2.30 and 2.32).

There were no substantial differences among the

projections for Alternatives 3 through 7, which

were somewhat higher than Alternatives 1 and 2.

146 Landscape Ecology
EEIS

Early-serai Lower Montane Forest

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD /ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Eariy-seral Lower Montane Forest

FS/BLM OOther

H Min H Max A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

Figure 2.29 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections tor alternatives 1 through 7 for the

early-serai lower montane forest community tor the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin E1S areas.

Landscape Ecology 147

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0 -

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
EEIS

Mid-serai Lower Montane Forest

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD /ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Mid-serai Lower Montane Forest

FS/BLM OOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD /ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

Figure 2.30 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections for alternatives 1 through 7 for the

mid-serai lower montane forest community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas.

148 Landscape Ecology

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
FS/BLM DOther

EEIS

Late-serai Single-layer Lower Montane Forest

2500 -

2000 -

1500 -

1000 -

500 -

0

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Late-serai Single-layer Lower Montane Forest

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 AS

PERIOD /ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

Figure 2.31 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections for alternatives 1 through 7 for the

late-serai single-layer lower montane forest community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas.

Landscape Ecology 149
EEIS

Late-serai Multi-layer Lower Montane Forest

FS/BLM nOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD /ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Late-serai Multi-layer Lower Montane Forest

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

PERIOD /ALTERNATIVE

Figure 2.32 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections for alternatives 1 through 7 for the

late-serai multi-layer lower montane forest community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas.

150 Landscape Ecology

2000

1500

1000

500

0
EEIS

Early-serai Montane Forest

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Early-serai Montane Forest

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

Figure 2.33 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections for alternatives 1 through 7 for the

early-serai montane forest community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas.

Landscape Ecology

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
EEIS

Mid-serai Montane Forest

IFS/BLM OOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 AS

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Mid-serai Montane Forest

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

Figure 2.34 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections for alternatives 1 through 7 for the

mid-serai montane forest community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas.

152 Landscape Ecology

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
400.0 i

EEIS

Late-serai Single-layer Montane Forest

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Late-serai Single-layer Montane Forest

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

Figure 2.35 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections for alternatives 1 through 7 for the

late-serai single-layer montane forest community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas.

Landscape Ecology 153

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
Late-serai Montane Multi-layer Forest — For the

Eastside EIS area as a whole, all alternatives except

Alternative 7 projected this community's occurrence within its historical range (figure 2.36; table

2.30). However, on BLM- and FS-administered

lands, Alternatives 2 through 7 projected occurrence well above the historical range (table 2.32).

There were very few discernible differences in the

projections of Alternatives 2 through 6.

Subalpine Forests —

Early-serai Subalpine Forest. The early-serai

subalpine forest was historically relatively rare

within the Eastside EIS area; its historical maximum extent did not exceed approximately

130,000 hectares. Although all alternatives would

decrease this community's areal extent, only

Alternatives 1, 2, and 7 would reduce its extent to

levels within its historical range for both ownership strata (figure 2.37; tables 2.30 and 2.32).

There were few differences among the projections

for Alternatives 3 through 6, all of which would

result in areas above the historical range, particularly for the BLM- and FS-administered lands.

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest. Although all alternatives would increase this community's areal

extent, only Alternatives 1, 2, and 7 would result

in areas within its historical range across both the

entire Eastside EIS area and the BLM- and FSadministered lands within the Eastside EIS area

(figure 2.38; tables 2.30 and 2.32). No substantial

differences among total areas were projected for

Alternatives 3 through 6.

Late-serai Subalpine Single-layer Forest. Historically, this community was relatively rare within

the Eastside EIS; its historical maximum extent

did not appear to exceed 55,000 hectares. All

alternatives would decrease this community's areal

extent to well below its historical range across the

entire Eastside EIS area and also across BLM- and

FS-administered lands within the Eastside EIS

area (figure 2.39; tables 2.30 and 2.32). There was

little substantial difference among the projections

of any alternative.

Late-serai Subalpine Multi-layer Forest. Historically, this community was also relatively rare within the Eastside EIS area; it never exceeded 250,000

hectares. All alternatives would increase this community's areal extent to a level within its historical

range across the Eastside EIS area as a whole, and

across BLM- and FS-administered lands within the

Eastside EIS area (figure 2.40; tables 2.30 and

2.32). There was little discernible difference among

the projections for Alternatives 1 through 6; Alternative 7 would result in the largest area of this

community within the Eastside EIS area.

Upland Communities —

Upland Herblands. As a result of agricultural

conversion on private ownerships, no alternative

projections were close to the historical range of

the upland herbland community across the

Eastside EIS area as a whole (figure 2.41; table

2.30). However, on BLM- and FS-administered

lands, all alternatives would increase this community's areal extent to a level within its historical

range (table 2.32). The 100-year projections did

not substantially vary among the alternatives for

either ownership stratum.

Upland Shrublands. There was little variability

among the simulation projections for the upland

shrubland community (figure 2.42; tables 2.30

and 2.32). The 100-year projections for the

Eastside EIS area as a whole were well below the

historical range for this community. All projections for BLM- and FS-administered lands closely

approached the historical minimum value for the

upland shrubland community, except for

Alternative 2, which actually fell below the historical range. However, because simulation modeling

problems with the spread of exotic herblands for

Alternative 2 distorted the projections, we believe

the area for this community under Alternative 2

should be very similar to Alternative 1.

In summary, it appears that all alternatives would

have areas of upland shrubland within their historical range on BLM- and FS-administered lands,

although only marginally above their historical

minimum value.

164 Landscape Ecology
EEIS

Late-serai Multi-layer Montane Forest

• FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Late-serai Multi-layer Montane Forest

FS/BLM mother

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD /ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

Figure 2.36 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections for alternatives 1 through 7 for the

late-serai multi-layer montane forest community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas.

Landscape Ecology 155

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
200 -i

EEIS

Early-seral Subalpine Forest

FS/BLM mother

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD/ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Early-seral Subalpine Forest

800 - FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD/ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

Figure 2.37 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections for alternatives 1 through 7 for the

early-serai subalpine forest community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas.

156 Landscape Ecology
EEIS

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest

FS/BLM mother

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD/ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

Figure 2.38 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections for alternatives 1 through 7 for the

mid-serai suhalpine forest community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas.

Landscape Ecology 157

500

400

300

200

100

0

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
EEIS

Late-serai Single-layer Subalpine Forest

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

400 -i

UCRB

Late-serai Single-layer Subalpine Forest

FS/BLM mother

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD/ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

Figure 2.39 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections for alternatives 1 through 7 for the

late-serai single-layer subalpine forest community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas.

Landscape Ecology

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
EEIS

Late-serai Multi-layer Subalpine Forest

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Late-serai Multi-layer Subalpine Forest

FS/BLM mother

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD/ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

Figure 2.40 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections for alternatives 1 through 7 for the

late-serai multi-layer subalpine forest community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas.

Landscape Ecology 159

250

200

150

100

50

0

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
EEIS

Upland Herbland

8000 -,

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Upland Herbland

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

PERIOD /ALTERNATIVE

Figure 2.41 — Comparison ot the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections for alternatives 1 through 7 for the

upland herbland community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas.

Landscape Ecology
EEIS

Upland Shrubland

FS/BLM mother

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD /ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Upland Shrubland

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

PERIOD /ALTERNATIVE

Figure 2.42 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections for alternatives 1 through 7 for the

upland shrubland community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas.

Landscape Ecology

15000

10000

5000

0

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
Upland Woodlands. All alternatives would

decrease this community's areal extent, for both

ownership strata (figure 2.43; tables 2.30 and

2.32). However, for the Eastside EIS area as a

whole, all alternatives would result in areas of

upland woodlands that exceed the historical

range. On BLM- and FS-administered lands within the Eastside EIS area, Alternatives 3 through 6

would have areas within the historical range of the

upland woodland community.

Riparian Communities —

Riparian Herblands, Shrublands, and Woodlands. As stated previously, we could not accurately estimate the historical range of riparian

communities, nor do we feel confident with our

estimates for the current period and 100-year projections. This low level of accuracy and confidence

is due to the coarse scale of our simulations,

which overemphasized the very large patches and

did not accurately portray outcomes. However,

the future trends for All and Other lands should

generally be correct. We believe our projections

represent a more negative outcome for BLM- and

FS-lands in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 than

suggested by the objectives and standards (figs.

2.44, 2.45 and 2.46).

Overall, at our scale of analysis, there was little

variability among the alternative projections

except for Alternative 7. The substantial differences in the areal extents of the riparian herblands

and riparian shrublands for Alternative 7 are

attributed to the amount of wildfire likely to

occur within the reserve areas.

Exotic Herbland Communities —

Exotic Herbland. We are uncertain about our

estimates of the exotic herbland community's areal

extent for both the current period and 100-year

projections. However, on a relative basis among

alternatives, the future trend is generally correct

(figure 2.47). Because the rate of increase used for

the exotic herbland community was very conservative, the exotic herbland community is likely to

increase at a faster rate than projected. Because

our 100-year projection for Alternative 2 was distorted due to modeling difficulties, the projection

was adjusted to be similar to Alternative 1. The

projected extent for exotic herblands under

Alternative 7 may be high relative to the other

action alternatives (3 through 6), particularly for

all ownerships in the EEIS. While exotic herblands will generally increase on BLM- and FSadministered lands in reserves, exotic herblands

on lands outside reserves will probably not

increase more rapidly than under Alternative 3.

Additional detail about the alternative outcomes

relating to exotic herblands is included in this

chapter in the discussion about the effects of alternatives on selected noxious weeds and cheatgrass.

Upper Columbia River Basin

Montane Forests —

Early-Serai Lower Montane Forest. No projection of any alternative showed an increase in this

community's areal extent to a level within its historical range across all ownerships within the

Upper Columbia River Basin (figure 2.29; table

2.34). However, we expect that Alternatives 1,

and 3 through 6, would substantially increase this

community's area to within its historical range on

BLM- and FS-administered lands in this basin

(table 2.36).

Mid-serai Lower Montane Forest. No alternative would reduce this community's areal extent to

within its historical range for either ownership

stratum (figure 2.30; tables 2.34 and 2.36). While

all restoration alternatives have comparable projections, Alternatives 1 and 2 have areal projections

above the historical range for both ownership strata within the Upper Columbia River Basin.

Alternatives 3 through 7 would not measurably

change the area of the mid-serai lower montane

community type.

Late-serai Lower Montane Single-layer Forest.

The 100-year projections of all alternatives would

substantially increase this community's areal

extent (figure 2.31; tables 2.34 and 2.36).

Landscape Ecology
However, for the Upper Columbia River Basin

area as a whole, no alternative has projections

within its historical range. Alternatives 3 through

6 would increase the areal extent of this community (with no measurable difference among alternatives) to within its historical range on BLMand FS-administered lands within the Upper

Columbia River Basin.

Late-serai Lower Montane Multi-layer Forest.

The 100-year projections of this community's

areal extent across all ownerships within the

Upper Columbia River Basin were well above the

historical range for all alternatives (figure 2.32;

table 2.34). On BLM- and FS-administered lands,

Alternatives 3 through 6 would reduce the area of

this community to a level nearly within its historical range (table 2.36). Alternatives 1 and 2 would

substantially exceed the historical range of this

community for BLM- and FS-administered lands.

Early-serai Montane Forest. The 100-year projections for this community's areal extent were

very similar (figure 2.33; tables 2.34 and 2.36).

All alternatives, except for Alternative 1, were projected to be within this community's historical

range across all ownerships within the Upper

Columbia River Basin. On BLM- and FSadministered lands, the 100-year projections for

Alternatives 1, and 3 through 6, were within the

community's historical range, whereas the outcomes for Alternatives 2 and 7 were below its historical range.

Mid-serai Montane Forest. Of the forested environments, the mid-serai montane forest community composes the largest proportion of the Upper

Columbia River Basin. All alternatives, except for

Alternative 1, would reduce this community's

areal extent to within its historical range across

both ownership strata within the Upper Columbia

River Basin (figure 2.34; tables 2.34 and 2.36).

The projection for Alternative 1 was still slightly

above the historical range across all ownerships.

There was very little difference among the 100-

year projections for any of the alternatives.

Late-serai Montane Single-layer Forest. With

the exception of Alternative 1, all alternatives

would measurably increase this community's areal

extent. Overall, however, the projections of all

alternatives were still well below its historical

range (figure 2.35; tables 2.34 and 2.36). There

was no substantial difference among the projections for Alternatives 2 through 6, which would

exceed that for Alternative 1, but be somewhat

less than Alternative 7. Most of the increased area

of this community would be accrued across BLMand FS-administered lands.

Late-serai Montane Multi-layer Forest. For the

Upper Columbia River area as a whole, all alternatives except for Alternative 7 projected this

community's occurrence within its historical range

across both ownership strata (figure 2.36; tables

2.34 and 2.36). On BLM- and FS-administered

lands, the 100-year projection of Alternative 7 was

slightly more than this community's historical

range. There was very little discernible difference

in the projections of Alternatives 2 through 6,

which would have greater increases than Alternative 1 but less increase than Alternative 7.

Subalpine Forests —

Early-serai Subalpine Forest. This community

type was historically relatively rare within the

Upper Columbia River Basin; its historical maximum extent did not exceed approximately 650,000

hectares. About 90 percent of the early-serai subalpine forest community occurs within BLM- and

FS-administered lands within the Upper Columbia

River Basin. All alternatives would decrease this

community's areal extent, but Alternatives 3 and 4

are closer to the historical range in both ownership

strata (figure 2.37; tables 2.34 and 2.36).

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest. All alternatives

would decrease this community's areal extent to

within its historical range across the entire Upper

Columbia River Basin, and across BLM- and FSadministered lands within the Basin (figure 2.38;

tables 2.34 and 2.36). There was little substantial

difference in total area projected among any of the

alternatives.

Landscape Ecology 163
EEIS

Upland Woodland

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 AS

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Upland Woodland

IFS/BLM OOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

Figure 2.43 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections for alternatives 1 through 7 for the

upland woodland community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas.

164 Landscape Ecology

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

800

600

400

200

0
EEIS

Riparian Herbland

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD /ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Riparian Herbland

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

PERIOD /ALTERNATIVE

Figure 2.44 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections for alternatives 1 through 7 for the

riparian herbland community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas.

Landscape Ecology 165

50

40

30

20

10

0

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
EEIS

Riparian Shrubland

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Riparian Shrubland

H Min H Max A1 A2 A3 A4 AS A6 A7

PERIOD /ALTERNATIVE

Figure 2.45 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections for alternatives 1 through 7 for the

riparian shrubland community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EiS areas.

Landscape Ecology

150

100

50

0

50

40

30

20

10

0
EEIS

Riparian Woodland

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Riparian Woodland

FS/BLM mother

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

Figure 2.46 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections tor alternatives 1 through 7 for the

riparian woodland community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas.

Landscape Ecology

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
EEIS

Exotic Herbland

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD / ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

UCRB

Exotic Herbland

o

o

o

1000 -i

800 -

600 -

400 -

200 -

0 -

FS/BLM DOther

H Min H Max C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5

PERIOD/ALTERNATIVE

A6 A7

Figure 2.47 — Comparison of the historical range to current and future (100 year) projections tor Alternatives 1 through 7 for

the exotic herbland community for the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin EIS areas. Amount in Alternative 2 adjusted

due to errors in modeling.

lillflill Landscape Ecology

2000

1500

1000

500

0
Late-serai Subalpine Single-layer Forest.

Historically, this community was relatively rare

within the Upper Columbia River Basin; its historical maximum extent did not appear to exceed

250,000 hectares. Virtually all of this community

is found on BLM- and FS-administered lands

within the Upper Columbia River Basin. All alternatives would substantially decrease this community's areal extent to within its historical range

across the entire Upper Columbia River Basin,

and across BLM- and FS-administered lands within the Basin (figure 2.39; tables 2.34 and 2.36).

There was little substantial difference among the

projections of any alternative.

Late-serai Subalpine Multi-layer Forest. All

alternatives would substantially increase this community's areal extent to a level within it historical

range across the Upper Columbia River Basin as a

whole, and across BLM- and FS-administered

lands within the Basin (figure 2.40; tables 2.34

and 2.36). There was little discernible difference

among the projections for Alternatives 1 through

6; Alternative 7 would result in the largest area of

this community within the Upper Columbia

River Basin.

Upland Communities —

Upland Herbland. Primarily as a result of agricultural conversion on private ownerships, no

alternative projections were similar to the historical range of the upland herbland community

across the Upper Columbia River Basin as a whole

(figure 2.41; tables 2.34 and 2.36). However, on

BLM- and FS-administered lands, all alternatives

except Alternative 2 would increase this community's areal extent to a level within its historical

range. The 100-year projections did not vary substantially among the alternatives for either ownership stratum.

Upland Shrubland. Historically, the upland

shrubland community comprised the largest proportion of the Upper Columbia River Basin, but

currently its areal extent is somewhat less than the

mid-serai montane forest. There was little variability among the simulation projections for the

upland shrubland community (figure 2.42; tables

2.34 and 2.36). While the 100-year projections

for the Upper Columbia River Basin as a whole

fell well below the historical range for this community, all projections for BLM- and FS-administered lands were within the historical range.

Upland Woodland. The upland woodland community within the Upper Columbia River Basin is

comprised almost entirely of the mixed-conifer

woodland cover type. Historically, however, the

upland woodland community composed a relatively small proportion of this basin. All alternatives would substantially increase the areal extent

of upland woodlands to a level well above its historical range for the Upper Columbia River Basin

as a whole and for BLM- and FS-administered

lands (figure 2.43; tables 2.34 and 2.36). There

was little variability among the projections of

Alternative 1 through 6, which were somewhat

greater than Alternative 7.

Riparian Communities —

Riparian Herbland, Shrubland, and Woodland.

As stated previously, we could not accurately estimate the historical range of riparian communities,

nor do we feel confident with our estimates for

the current period and 100-year projections. The

reason for this uncertainty is that our simulations

were conducted at too coarse a scale, which

overemphasized the very large patches and did not

accurately portray outcomes.

The future trends, however, should generally be

correct for All and Other lands. Alternatives 2

through 7 represent a more negative outcome

than suggested by their objectives and the standards. Overall because of similar standards, there

was little variability among the Alternatives 2

through 7 projections.

Exotic Herbland Communities —

Exotic Herbland. We are uncertain about our

estimates of the areal extent of the exotic herbland

community for both the current period and 100-

year projections. However, on a relative basis

Landscape Ecology
among alternatives the future trend should generally be correct. Some of our uncertainty about

exotic herbland is related to the very conservative

estimate we used for the exotic herbland's rate of

increase, which means the exotic herbland community may likely increase at a faster rate than

projected. Also, our 100-year projection for

Alternative 2 is adjusted due to modeling difficulties to be similar to Alternative 1. The projected

extent for exotic herblands under Alternative 7

may be too great relative to the other action alternatives (3 through 6), particularly for all ownerships in the UCRB EIS area. While exotic herblands will generally increase on BLM- and FSadministered lands in reserves, exotic herblands

on land outside reserves will probably not increase

more rapidly than under Alternative 3.

Additional detail relating to exotic herbland and

the alternative outcomes is included in this chapter's discussion about the effects of alternatives on

selected noxious weeds and cheatgrass.

Summary

We would recommend that any future analysis of

broad-scale communities as terrestrial habitats use

the physiognomic type groups stratified by 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.

170 Landscape Ecology