Map 2.19 - Alternative 5 management prescription (Rx) assignments for forest, rangeland, and other potential vegetation groups. Management 

prescriptions indicate level of management and restoration activities with probability of disturbance events for wilderness and non-wilderness road° 

ed and roadless land management classes. 

Landscape Ecology 
Map 2.20 - Alternative 6 management prescription (Rx) assignments for forest, rangeland, and other potential vegetation groups. Management 

prescriptions indicate level of management and restoration activities with probability of disturbance events for wilderness and non-wilderness roaded and roadless land management classes. 

Landscape Ecology 
Map 2.21 - Alternative 7 management prescription (Rx) assignments for forest, rangeland, and other potential vegetation groups. Management 

prescriptions indicate level of management and restoration activities with probability of disturbance events for wilderness and non-wilderness roaded and roadless land management classes. 

Landscape Ecology 
Eastside EIS Area

Alternative Management Disturbances

Figure 2.3 — Comparison of simulation with PDE1S forest management disturbances for the Eastside EIS area.

Eastside EIS Area

Alternative Management Disturbances

Figure 2.4 — Comparison of simulation with PDEIS range management disturbances for the Eastside EIS atea.

Landscape Ecology
Upper Columbia EIS Area

Alternative Management Disturbances

Figure 2.5— Comparison of simulation with PDEIS forest management disturbances for the UCRB EIS area.

Upper Columbia EIS Area

Alternative Management Disturbances

Figure 2.6 — Comparison of simulation with PDEIS range management disturbances for the UCRB EIS area.

Landscape Ecology
Table 2.8 — Alternative simulations compared to the preliminary draft EIS minimum and maximum levels 

activities for first decade.

EIS

Area

1

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

Alternative

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Forest

Harvest,

Simulation

615,000

358,000

425,000

419,000

439,000

401 ,000

295,000

573,000

251,000

391,000

324,000

393,000

265,000

204,000

Forest

Harvest,

Preliminary

Draft, EIS

Minimum

500,000

259,000

352,000

378,000

431 ,000

310,000

97,000

455,000

190,000

318,000

293,000

378,000

180,000

168,000

Forest

Harvest,

Preliminary

Draft EIS,

Maximum

674,000

348,000

478,000

512,000

583,000

419,000

130,000

617,000

257,000

431 ,000

395,000

512,000

245,000

229,000

Forest Thin,

Simulation

158,000

77,000

117,000

117,000

113,000

1 1 1 ,000

67,000

265,000

91,000

160,000

162,000

162,000

146,000

103,000

Forest Thin,

Preliminary

Draft EIS,

Minimum

Hectares

2

164,000

172,000

259,000

310,000

249,000

293,000

105,000

259,000

206,000

344,000

439,000

370,000

378,000

134,000

Forest Thin,

Preliminary

Draft EIS,

Maximum

221 ,000

233,000

348,000

419,000

338,000

395,000

142,000

348,000

279,000

465,000

593,000

500,000

512,000

182,000

Forest

Prescription

Burn,

Simulation

121,000

95,000

882,000

882,000

834,000

866,000

496,000

156,000

194,000

1,182,000

1,186,000

577,000

1,016,000

423,000

'EEIS = Eastside EIS area.

UCRB = Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

;Rounded to nearest thousand; hectare = 2.47 acres.
Table 2.9 — Alternative simulations compared to the preliminary draft EIS minimum and maximum levels 

activities.

EIS

Area' Alternative

Range

Prescription

Burn,

Simulation

Range

Prescription

Burn,

Preliminary

Draft EIS,

Minimum

Range

Prescription

Burn,

Preliminary

Draft EIS,

Maximum

Range

Vegetation

Improvement,

Simulation

Range Total

Improvement,

Preliminary

Draft EIS,

Minimum

Range Total

Improvement,

Preliminary

Draft EIS,

Maximum

1 li-.nt-ir.-n-?

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

EEIS

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

UCRB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

51,000

55,000

346,000

393,000

340,000

384,000

328,000

26,000

28,000

117,000

127,000

53,000

65,000

18,000

73,000

73,000

127,000

144,000

93,000

144,000

123,000

83,000

83,000

188,000

188,000

85,000

188,000

186,000

97,000

97,000

172,000

192,000

125,000

196,000

168,000

1 1 1 ,000

111,000

253,000

253,000

113,000

253,000

251 ,000

20,000 97,000

20,000

83,000

148,000

53,000

115,000

87,000

12,000

12,000

140,000

212,000

55,000

130,000

65,000

97,000

285,000

391,000

217,000

241,000

97,000

109,000

109,000

330,000

401,000

192,000

556,000

109,000

130,000

130,000

386,000

528,000

293,000

326,000

130,000

150,000

150,000

447,000

542,000

261,000

751,000

150,000

'EEIS = Eastside EIS area.

UCRB = Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

2Rounded to nearest thousand; hectare = 2.47 acres.
Implementation and Allocation of

Activity Levels from Preliminary

Draft EIS

The process of modeling management activities

and landscape evaluation variables was done differently for Alternatives 1 and 2 than for

Alternatives 3 through 7.

Alternatives 1 and 2

For Alternatives 1 and 2, we used a traditional

programmatic process that allocated management

activities through mapping prescriptions by management region and potential vegetation group to

simulate the appropriate levels of management

activity by EIS area and subbasin cluster.

Alternatives 3 through 7

To allocate activities for Alternatives 3 through 7,

which incorporate multi-scale spatial and temporal relationships, we used a process that was based

on the multi-scale assumption identified in the

"Introduction" section of this chapter. This

process was necessary to achieve the integrated

activity sets for Chapter 3 of the preliminary draft

EISs, and for the effects predictions and interpretations in this evaluation of alternatives and in

Chapter 4 of the preliminary draft EISs.

The following "step-down/step-back" process provides the steps for spatial and temporal allocation

of activities that would be consistent with this

evaluation of alternatives and with the information provided for the effects in Chapter 4 of the

preliminary draft EISs.

1. Prioritize management activity levels spatially

and temporally for the selected alternative for

subbasins within a cluster using an integrated

proper functioning systems (landscape health)

assessment for risk and opportunity analysis.

Follow the same methods used for the ecosystem integrity analysis, landscape fire risk, and

landscape patterns of succession/disturbance

regime analysis. Conduct this prioritization to

provide "best fit" to minimize risks such as erosion, sediment transport, wildfire, loss of

socioeconomic opportunities, terrestrial community departure, riparian degradation, and

impact on aquatic strongholds, rare terrestrial

species, clean air, and clean water. Prioritizing

is necessary because the effects tables were

adjusted to fit the landscape assumptions of

differences in strategies among Alternatives 3

through 7.

Assess linkages to adjacent subbasins within the

cluster, EIS area, and the Basin to assess cumulative effects. Compare optional "best fits" to

select the prescription that minimizes risk and

achieves opportunity objectives; then compare

with original projections of effects to validate

predictions in Chapter 4 of the preliminary

draft EISs.

2. Prioritize management activity levels within

subbasins at the watershed or subwatershed

level, using a similar process. Conduct this prioritization to provide "best fit" to minimize

negative effects as listed in Step 1. Summarize

effects across watersheds or subwatersheds in

the subbasin to assess cumulative effects. As in

Step 1, compare optional "best fit" to select the

one that minimizes risks and achieves opportunity objectives. Then compare with original

projections of effects to validate preliminary

draft EIS Chapter 4 predictions.

3. Design projects in context with step 2 and

adjust based on site-specific conditions.

Statistically extrapolate project data to update,

validate, and adjust Steps 1 and 2.

Summary of Confidence in

Predictions and Qualifiers

Table 2.10 provides a summary of variables and

their comparability between the simulations and

the preliminary draft EISs' alternative levels.

Table 2.11 provides a summary about the predictability of the terrestrial vegetation simulation

results relative to the preliminary draft EISs'

alternatives.

Landscape Ecology
Table 2.12 — Notes on response of potential vegetation groups for CRBSUM evaluation of alternative

simulations.

Item Notes

Simulation Level

Rangeland Riparian PVGs

Rangeland Dry Shrub,

Dry Grass, and

Woodland PVGs

Rangeland Cool Shrub

PVGs

The CRBSUM evaluation of alternatives simulations are based on the prescription

models mapped at a forest or range level, not at the potential vegetation group

(PVG) level. There is varying emphasis by potential vegetation group based on the

preliminary draft EISs, alternative desired future conditions, and standards. We did

not vary prescriptions models by potential vegetation group within forest or range at

the time of simulation due to lack of time and changing desired future conditions

and standards within the preliminary draft EISs.

The CRBSUM simulation of riparian is non-applicable due to the scale of historical

and current riparian mapping. Scale and type of current mapping are too coarse to

depict the stringer riparian types and over-emphasize the large patch types. The historical mapping did not map riparian types as separate from the upland forest and

range types. The CRBSUM trends in vegetation response by alternative for riparian

types are useful when placed in the context of scale. Response trends of the riparian vegetation simulations over time represent a more negative outcome for Alternatives 2 through 6, than for the desired future conditions and the standards for those

alternatives. Riparian response trends for Alternatives 1 and 7 are generally correct.

The CRBSUM simulation of these types generally meets the expectations, but does

not have the restoration emphasis in Alternatives 4 and 6 that could be simulated if

prescriptions were mapped to the potential vegetation group level. Based on the

preliminary draft EISs' description of alternatives, there should be more restoration

in Alternatives 4 and 6 than Alternatives 3 and 5, which have more than Alternatives 1, 2, and 7. This prioritization is not simulated in the current mapping of prescriptions. However, the current prescription for fire suppression does emphasize

increased fire suppression in these potential vegetation groups to reduce rates of

increase of annual grasses. Exotic trend response in these potential vegetation

groups is correct, except in Alternative 2 where exotics increase more rapidly than

other alternatives. However, Alternative 2 exotics are generally replacing upland

shrub due to fire and/ or livestock grazing, so their response should be similar to

Alternative t.The upland woodland cutting and the restoration to upland herb and

shrub is occurring primarily in these potential vegetation groups, not in the woodland potential vegetation group. There are more dry shrub, dry grass, and woodland

potential vegetation groups in the Eastside EIS area than in the Upper Columbia

River Basin EIS area.

The CRBSUM simulation of this type meets expectations, except for lacking emphasis on restoration using prescribed fire, exotic forb control, and control of encroachment conifer and woodland in Alternatives 4 and 6 that could be simulated if prescriptions were mapped to the potential vegetation group level. Based on the preliminary draft description of alternatives, the restoration level in Alternatives 4 and 6

should be more than Alternatives 3 and 5, which have more than Alternatives 1, 2.

and 7. Because this prioritization is not simulated in the current mapping of prescriptions, there is more cool shrub type in the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS

area than in the Eastside EIS area.

84 Landscape Ecology
Table 2.12 (continued)

Item Notes

Forest PVGs The CRBSUM simulation of these types generally meets expectations. However, the

dry forest potential vegetation group does not have emphasis on using prescribed

fire, exotic forb control, and harvest/thinning to restore native structures in Alternatives 4 and 6 that could be simulated if prescriptions were mapped to the potential

vegetation group level. Based on the preliminary draft EISs' description of alternative, there should be more restoration in Alternatives 4 and 6 than in Alternatives 3

and 5, which have more than Alternatives 1, 2, and 7. In general, range management is not simulated to the same level in the forest potential vegetation group as in

the range potential vegetation group, the desired future conditions, and the standards in the preliminary draft EISs. The reason for this disparity is the time constraint to develop the more complex forested range relationships that occur in these

potential vegetation groups.

Table 2.13 — Notes on alternative assumptions relative to spatial prioritization of activities compared to

CRBSUM simulation of activities.

Group1 and

Alternative Notes

Group F This group of subbasins represents areas with high levels of urban and wild/and interface influence, high fire risks in those zones, and low overall ecological integrity. Subbasins are dominated

by the dry forest potential vegetation group (PVG) with intermixed range PVGs.

Alt. 1 & 2 No particular emphasis in comparison to other groups, except more activities than group H.

Alt. 4 & 6 High emphasis on forest composition, structure, and process restoration activities. Slower rate of

implementation in Alternative 6 than Alternative 4.

Alt. 3 Low emphasis on activities relative to Alternatives 4 and 6 due to local concerns for maintenance

of forested visual conditions and big game hiding cover.

Alt. 5 Low emphasis on activities relative to Alternatives 4 and 6 due to lack of high net benefit and productivity returns.

Alt. 7 Similar emphasis on activities in this group as for Alternative 3.

Group J This group of subbasins represents areas with high to moderate levels of urban and wildland interface influence, high fire risks in those zones, and moderate overall ecological integrity. Subbasins

are dominated by the dry forest potential vegetation group, with intermixed range potential vegetation groups.

Alt. 1 & 2 No particular emphasis compared to other groups, except more activities than group H.

Alt. 4 & 6 High emphasis on forest composition, structure, and process restoration activities in this group.

Slower rate of implementation in Alternative 6 than Alternative 4, and less emphasis than in group F.

Alt. 3 Similar emphasis on activities in this group relative to Alternatives 4 and 6.

Alt. 5 Low emphasis on activities relative to Alternatives 4 and 6 due to lack of high net benefit and productivity returns.

Alt. 7 Similar emphasis on activities as Alternative 3.

Landscape Ecology
Table 2.13 (continued)

Group1 and

Alternative Notes

Group L This group includes subbasins that have moderate levels of urban/wildland interface influence,

moderate to high fire risk in those zones, and low integrity. Subbasins are typically dominated with

woodland, dry shrub, or dry forest potential vegetation groups. Dry forest dominated subbasins are

typically intermixed with range potential vegetation groups.

Alt. 1 & 2 No particular emphasis in comparison to other groups, except more activities than group H.

Alt. 4 & 6 High emphasis on forest and/or range composition, structure, and process restoration activities.

Emphasis on exotic control. Emphasis on fire suppression in dry shrub and dry grass potential vegetation groups. Slower rate of implementation in Alternative 6 than in Alternative 4.

Alt. 3 High emphasis on forest management activities due to local concerns. High emphasis on range

activities due to concentrated public land base, working relationships with permittees, and available

resources.

Alt. 5 Low emphasis on activities relative to Alternatives 4 and 6 due to lack of high net benefit and productivity returns.

Alt. 7 Similar emphasis on activities as in Alternative 3.

Group M This group includes subbasins that have low to moderate levels of urban/wildland interface influence, low to moderate fire risk in those zones, and fair to high productivity. Integrity on forest dominated subbasins is low, but productivity is high and the succession response relative to restoration

opportunities is rapid. However, these subbasins have major historic effects of blister rust on western white pine. Large areas within the forest subbasins are now dominated by shrubs or insect/disease, stress, and fire-susceptible tree species, with high risk of cycling. Range-dominated subbasins have moderate integrity and productivity, with good opportunities to conserve or restore ecological integrity.

Alt. 1 & 2 No particular emphasis in comparison to other groups, except more activities than group H.

Alt. 4 & 6 High emphasis on: (1) forest and/or range composition, structure, and process restoration activities;

(2) western white pine recovery in the forest dominated subbasins; and (3) watershed restoration

via road density reductions. Emphasis on fire suppression, exotic control, and restoration of natives

in range dominated subbasins. Emphasis on fire suppression in dry shrub and dry grass potential

vegetation groups on range dominated subbasins. Slower rate of implementation in Alternative 6

than in Alternative 4.

Alt. 3 Moderate emphasis in forest dominated subbasins on forest management activities due to local

concerns. Primary local emphasis will be to maintain flow of timber to the mills. High emphasis in

range-dominated subbasins on range activities due to concentrated public land base, working relationships with permittees, and available resources.

Alt. 5 High emphasis on commodity production in the forest dominated subbasins relative to Alternatives

4 and 6. Similar emphasis as group L on range dominated subbasins.

Alt. 7 Similar emphasis as Alternative 3 for forest dominated subbasins. Reserve areas present in the

range dominated subbasins.

Group H This group includes subbasins that have low urban/wildland interface influence, but high levels of

semi-primitive and peripheral developed recreation use, moderate fire risk in those zones, and high

integrity. A substantial amount of these subbasins is in wilderness or roadless condition. Forests

have low departures from the historic range of variability in comparison to other subbasin groups.

These subbasins contain the largest amount of cold forest, which has the historic effect of blister

rust on whitebark pine; blister rust causes substantial changes in forest composition, structure, and

processes in the subalpine zone. Dry forest potential vegetation groups are also common, and fires

in this zone can be large and intense. Intermixed range potential vegetation groups are generally

low departure from the historical range of variability.

Alt. 1 & 2 Less emphasis on activities at the broad scale compared to other groups due to high amounts of

designated wilderness. However, substantial projected reading at the watershed level in roadless

areas around wilderness areas.

Landscape Ecology
Table 2.13 (continued)

Group1 and

Alternative Notes

Alt. 4 & 6 High emphasis on conservation of high integrity and associated forest and/or range composition,

structure, and processes via protection from development and management for natural processes,

such as prescribed natural fire, including both planned and unplanned ignitions. High emphasis on

whitebark pine recovery in the cold forest potential vegetation groups.

Alt. 3 High emphasis on conservation due to local concerns about development and visuals. Moderate

emphasis on restoration of whitebark pine. Moderate emphasis on restoring composition, structure,

and processes.

Alt. 5 Low emphasis on commodity production. High emphasis on recreation use. Low emphasis on

restoration, relative to Alternatives 4 and 6.

Alt. 7 Primarily in reserve areas. Expect unpredictable fire and insect/stress events. Successional cycles

not expected to achieve restoration objectives since areas have tendency toward urban/wildland

interface areas where there is high concern for maintaining visual conditions. Consequently, many

fire starts would be suppressed. Only large fires would not be controlled. Exotics would continue to

spread. No recovery of whitebark pine.

'Refers to map 2.22 "FS and BLM Lands CRBSUM Forest and Range Cluster Groups."

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

Group J: high urban/wildland interface, moderate integrity, moderate fire risk.

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

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

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

Landscape Ecology 87
Map 2.22 - Groups of forest and range clusters based on similariues in aquauc, forest, and rangeland integrity, fire risk, and urban-rural/wildland 

interface for summarizing CRBSUM response. 

Landscape Ecolo~zv 
Table 2.14 — River subbasin grouping for display of preliminary draft EIS BLM/FS management and

other disturbances, and associated effects.

Subbasin Group Legend Description

High Urban/Wildlands

(F)

Low Integrity

Mod-High Fire Risk

High Urban/Wildlands

(J)

Low Integrity

Moderate Fire Risk

Mod Urban/Wildlands

(L)

Low Integrity

High Fire Risk

Low Urban/Wildlands

(M)

Low-Moderate Integrity

Moderate Fire Risk

Low Urban/Wildlands

(H)

High Integrity

Moderate Fire Risk

• Dry river subbasins with high amounts of urban/wildland interface and moderate

to high fire risk in those areas.

• Generally low consideration of aquatic, and mixed low to moderate consideration

for forest and range integrity.

• Low amounts of wilderness and semi-primitive areas.

• Moderate to high amounts of BLM- and FS-administered lands.

• Includes forest cluster 6 and some range clusters 3 and 6.

River subbasins with high/some moderate amounts of urban/wildland interface

and moderate fire risk in those areas.

Generally moderate consideration for aquatic and range, and low to moderate for

forest integrity.

Moderate amounts of wilderness and semi-primitive areas, typically in the headwaters.

Moderate to high amounts of BLM- and FS-administered lands.

Includes forest cluster 3 and some range cluster 3.

Dry forest or range-dominated river subbasins with moderate amounts of

urban/wildland interface and high fire risk in those areas.

Low consideration for forest integrity and low, with some moderate consideration

for aquatic and range integrity.

Low amounts of wilderness and semi-primitive areas.

Mixed low to high amounts of BLM- and FS-administered lands.

Includes forest clusters 5 and 7, and primarily range clusters 3 and 6.

Moist forest-dominated or cooler range-dominated river subbasins with low

urban/wildland interface and moderate fire risk in those areas.

Low to moderate consideration for aquatic and forest integrity, with moderate to

high for range integrity.

Low to moderate levels of wilderness and semi-primitive areas.

High amounts of BLM- and FS-administered lands.

Includes forest clusters 4 and 7, and primarily range clusters 5 and 7.

River subbasins with low amounts of urban/wildland interface and moderate fire

risk in those areas.

High, with some moderate, consideration of forest, range, and aquatic integrity.

High amounts of wilderness and semi-primitive areas.

High amounts of BLM- and FS-administered lands.

Forest clusters 1 and 2, and primarily range clusters 2 and 5.

Landscape Ecology 89
90 Landscape Ecology