Vegetation Response and Disturbance Patterns

The response of vegetation to the different alternatives is discussed in reference to the terrestrial

communities (TC), physiognomic type groups

(PTG), potential vegetation groups (PVG), and

transition of physiognomic type group by PVG.

Figures for the key terrestrial community discussion are included in the text. Figures for transitions and PTG by PVG are provided in appendices 2J and 2K, respectively. For information on

definitions and cross-walk relationships of terrestrial communities, we refer the reader to the

Landscape Dynamics assessment (Hann and others, in press), appendices 3A-3G.

Successional changes for the potential vegetation

groups are generally discussed in reference to

transitions of the physiognomic types, which are

highly correlated with the terrestrial communities. Spatial differences among alternatives are

described using forest and range cluster groups

(map 2.22) and Ecological Reporting Units

(ERUs) (map 2.24). Additional information

about physiognomic types is provided in this

chapter in the discussion about management and

other disturbances.

We are fairly confident about the predicted

response at the EIS area, potential vegetation

group, ecological reporting unit, and forest and

range cluster group levels. However, the subbasin

(map 2.22) predictions should be used with caution, since the simulated prescriptions were not

mapped at the subbasin/potential vegetation

group level, but instead at the forest or range cluster group and potential vegetation group levels.

Forest Potential Vegetation Groups

The forest potential vegetation groups include the

dry forest, moist forest, and cold forest.

In the Eastside EIS area, there are approximately

10.7 million hectares (26.4 million acres) of the

forest potential vegetation groups on BLM- and

FS-administered lands:

•5.9 million hectares (14.6 million acres), or 55

percent, in dry forest

• 3.6 million hectares (8.9 million acres), or 34

percent, in moist forest

• 1.2 million hectares (3 million acres), or 11 percent, in cold forest.

In the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area,

there are approximately 10.2 million hectares

(26.2 million acres) of the forest potential vegetation groups on BLM- and FS-administered lands:

• 2.4 million hectares (5.9 million acres), or 23

percent, in dry forest

• 4.7 million hectares (11.6 million acres), or 47

percent, in moist forest

• 3.1 million hectares (7.7 million acres), or 30

percent, in cold forest.

The historical to current comparisons depict transitions of different physiognomic types from the

circa 1850s historical map to the current map. For

each alternative, the depicted transition is from

current to the 100-year map (appendix 2J).

There were errors in the management prescription

(Rx) mapping for Alternatives 2 and 7 that

resulted in problems with simulation of response.

The amount of exotic herbland projected in

Alternative 2 was too high and was adjusted to be

similar to Alternative 1. The first iteration of Rx

mapping did not reflect the activity levels in the

preliminary draft EIS Chapter 3 or the standards.

The actual response would be intermediate

between the depicted Alternative 7 response and

the Alternative 3 response. This was corrected in

the section, "Evaluation of Landscape

Disturbances," on disturbance and management

activities and in the appendices on transition (2J)

and PTG by PVG response (2K), but there was

inadequate time to correct the terrestrial community response.

Landscape Ecology 19?
Lower Montane Forest Response

Early-Serai Lower Montane Forest —

Occurrence: Although most terrestrial communities of this type are in the dry forest, some can

occur in the moist forest. Early-serai lower montane currently occurs below historical levels in

both EIS areas, which was a finding of concern in

the landscape assessment (Hann and others, in

press) (figs. 2.49 and 2.50).

Response to Alternatives: Figures 2.49 and 2.50

depict the response of the early-serai lower montane forest terrestrial communities. All alternatives

would increase the amount of this terrestrial community as a result of ponderosa pine regeneration

following harvest, prescribed fire, and wildfire.

Alternatives 3 through 6, which emphasize

restoration, would provide for the most increase;

Alternative 1 would have an intermediate increase;

Alternative 2 would have the lowest increase; and

Alternative 7 if corrected would be somewhat

above that of Alternative 2.

The primary disturbances that would produce the

early-serai lower montane are:

• Alternative 1: harvest and wildfire.

• Alternative 2 and 7: wildfire.

• Alternatives 3 through 6: harvest and prescribed

fire.

EARLY-SERAL LOWER MONTANE FOREST

Eastside E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

300,000

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

100

All Ownership

600,000

Figure 2.49 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the early-serai lower montane forest for the Eastside EIS area.

198 Landscape Ecology
EARLY-SERAL LOWER MONTANE FOREST

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

300,000

250,000

«5 200,000

w

Ctf

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

100

A1I Ownership

500,000

400,000

300,000

W 200,000

MM

100,000

0

Historic 0 100

Figure 2.50 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the early-serai lower montane forest for the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

Community Transition: There was little early-serai

lower montane created from the historical to current, except by succession from upland herb.

Although a small amount was created through

harvest in late-serai forests, the patch sizes were

small and the cutting treatments often maintained

an overstory but did not provide for regeneration

of shade-intolerant species, including ponderosa

pine.

In all alternatives, the projected early-serai lower

montane would come primarily from the lateserai, shade-tolerant, multi-layer forest. The model

simulations indicate that herb and shrub types

would continue to decline in the dry forest potential vegetation group in all alternatives. We note a

lack of emphasis in any alternative on management to control exotic plants and noxious weeds

in the dry forest potential vegetation group,

whereas considerable emphasis would be placed

on exotic plant and noxious weed control in the

rangeland potential vegetation groups.

Composition and Structure: The structure of the

early-serai communities would be closest to the

native composition and structure in Alternatives 4

and 6, which have harvest and fire treatments that

emphasize mimicking of ecosystem processes.

Alternative 1 would produce early-serai communities similar to tree regeneration plantations, with

Landscape Ecology 199
uniform spacing and size. Alternative 2 would be

predominated by areas with small harvest patches,

or areas of wildfire that would be salvage-logged

and planted. Depending on the local priority and

degree of ecological emphasis, Alternative 3 would

produce structures having moderate similarity to

the native regime. Alternative 5 would be similar

to Alternative 1 in the higher production areas,

and to Alternative 3 in other areas. Alternative 7

would have structures similar to Alternative 3 in

the non-reserve areas and to wildfire-created structures in the reserve areas.

Fire, Disturbances and Treatment: The current

early-serai that was created in the dry forest is typically in the wrong location for the fire regime.

Historically, this type occurred on the steeper

landforms where climate and topography supported either a relatively frequent fire interval that

maintained upland herbland, shrubland, and

early-serai communities, or a less frequent crownfire regime that cycled mid-serai communities.

Harvesting patterns have typically created these

types on benches and ridges that historically were

in a relatively frequent underburning regime,

which maintained open (park-like) late-serai

single-layer structures.

Harvest units and prescribed fires in Alternatives

1 and 2 would continue the same harvest pattern

as current management. Wildfire in Alternative 2

would tend to create early-serai patches consistent

with the current fuel patterns. Harvest units and

prescribed fires in Alternatives 4 and 6 would

result in patterns similar to the native regime,

with Alternative 6 transitioning at a slower rate.

Alternative 5 would generally not emphasize

restoring landscape patterns in this type. Alternative 3 would proceed at a very slow rate given its

local emphasis. Alternative 7 would be similar to

Alternative 3 in the non-reserve areas, and to

wildfire-created mosaics in the reserve areas.

Spatial Distribution of Activities: In Alternatives 1

and 2, disturbances and treatments that create

this type would generally be scattered throughout

all the forest and range cluster groups (see table

2.20, map 2.22). In Alternatives 4 and 6, the prescribed natural fire program (both planned and

unplanned ignition) would play a primary role by

having: some associated harvest treatments in forest and range cluster group H; timber harvest with

fuel treatments to reduce risk of wildfire prioritized

in group F; a moderate emphasis on fuel and harvest treatments in groups J and L; and low emphasis in group M. The focus of Alternative 3 for harvest and fuel treatments would be in groups J and

L. Although Alternative 5 would not focus treatments on early-serai lower montane, this type

would be created primarily in groups L and M.

Mid-Serai Lower Montane Forest —

Occurrence: Most of this terrestrial community is

in the dry forest, but some can occur in the moist

forest. Although its current and historical levels

are about the same in the Eastside EIS area within

BLM- and FS-administered lands, its current level

in the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area and

for All ownerships combined in both EIS areas is

much higher than historical levels (figs. 2.51 and

2.52).

Response to Alternatives: Figures 2.51 and 2.52

depict the response of the mid-serai lower montane

forest. Alternatives 1 and 2 would show a strong

increase in the amount of mid-serai lower montane,

primarily due to management on BLM- and FSadministered lands, but partially due to comparable

management on other lands. The restorationemphasis alternatives (3 through 6) generally would

maintain amounts of mid-serai lower montane at

its historical and current levels as a result of harvest,

thinning, and prescribed fire, along with the associated effects of wildfire. Alternative 7 would be similar to the figure response in the reserve areas, and

to Alternative 3 on the non-reserve areas.

Community Transition: From the historical to

current period, this type primarily changed from

upland herbland and shrubland communities, and

early-serai and single-layer, late-serai intolerant

(primarily lower montane) forests. The net change

to a mid-serai community resulted from succession in response to fire exclusion. Although some

mid-serai developed in the native regime, it generally cycled to early-serai stages with fire.

Landscape Ecology
MID-SERAL LOWER MONTANE FOREST

Eastside E.I.S. Area

u

BLM / FS Ownership

1,500,000

1,400,000

1,300,000

1,200,000

1,100,000

1,000,000

900,000

800,000

700,000

Historic 100

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

3,200,000

3,000,000

2,800,000

§ 2,600,000

S 2,400,000

g 2,200,000

2,000,000

1,800,000

All Ownership

1,600,000

Historic

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

-» -4- -*- -•- -e- -*- -*-

Figure 2.51 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the mid-serai lower montane forest for the Eastside EIS area.

The transition from late-serai single-layer forests

to mid-serai involves loss of the overstory from

stress, insect, and disease mortality. These disturbances are associated with a lack of understory

and mixed-behavior type fires in the late-serai

stage. Without mixed behavior fires that create a

thinning effect and accelerate growth of survivor

trees, much of the mid-serai stage also stays in the

mid-serai stage.

Alternatives 1 and 2 would continue the transition

of upland herb, early-serai forest, and late-serai

forest to mid-serai forest, and maintain much of

the mid-serai forest in the mid-serai stage. The

transitions from mid-serai in Alternatives 1 and 2

cycle within the mid-serai stage, or to late-serai

multi-layer stages. This change in pattern is associated with high mortality of large and intermediate

size trees from stress, insects, disease, and wildfire,

along with the associated effects of salvage logging.

Alternatives 3 through 6 would have much lower

levels of net transitions to the mid-serai stage and

generally to the late-serai single-layer community.

Alternative 7 would be similar to the figure

response in the reserve areas, and to Alternative 3

in the non-reserve areas. Alternatives 3 through 6

would generally maintain amounts similar to the

HRV on BLM- and FS-administered lands in the

Eastside EIS area.

Landscape Ecology
MID-SERAL LOWER MONTANE FOREST

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

1,200,000

500,000

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

100

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

All Ownership

2,400,000

2,200,000

2,000,000

co

eg 1,800,000

$

% 1,600,000

s

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

100

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

Figure 2.52 —Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the mid-serai lower montane forest for the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

Across all ownerships in the Eastside EIS area, the

level of mid-serai lower montane maintained

would be much higher due to the general pattern

of harvesting of the larger trees and leaving of

small trees. In the Upper Columbia River Basin

area, however, the amount of mid-serai lower

montane maintained on BLM- and FS-administered lands in Alternatives 3 through 6 would be

similar to current levels, which are substantially

above the HRV.

Composition and Structure: In general, the structure of these early-serai communities would be

closest to the native regime in Alternatives 4 and

6 due to their emphasis on mimicking ecosystem

processes with harvest and prescribed fire treatments. Alternative 1 would produce mid-serai

communities with relatively uniform spacing and

size. Alternative 2 would produce stands of high

density and small, dead-standing and down trees.

Depending on local priorities and the degree of

ecological emphasis, Alternative 3 would produce

structures having moderate similarity to the native

regime. Alternative 5 would be similar to

Alternative 1 in the higher production areas, and

similar to Alternative 3 in other areas. Alternative

7 would produce structures similar to Alternative

3 in the non-reserve areas, and to current structures in the reserve areas.

202 Landscape Ecology
Fire, Disturbances, and Treatments: The current

mid-serai stage in the dry forest is typically found

in all fire regimes of the dry forest. This type

occurred historically on the steeper landforms

where climate and topography provided a crown

fire regime that cycled mid-serai communities to

early-serai communities and accelerated some

patches into late-serai single-layer communities.

The native fire regime in these areas included relatively frequent underburning fires that maintained

open (park-like) late-serai single-layer structures.

Historical harvest patterns, that removed large

older trees in combination with fire exclusion,

accelerated development of these mid-serai types

on benches and ridges.

Continuing the traditional harvest and fire exclusion in Alternatives 1 and 2 would increase the

amount of mid-serai that is inconsistent with the

succession/disturbance regime. The thinning, harvest units, and prescribed fires in Alternatives 4

and 6 would shift patterns to the native regime,

with Alternative 6 transitioning at a slower rate.

Alternative 5, given its economic priority limitations, would have moderate ability to shift patterns to fit the native regime. Alternative 3 activities would be implemented at varying rates due to

local emphasis. Alternative 7 would be similar to

Alternative 3 in the non-reserve areas, and to the

current regime in the reserve areas.

Spatial Distribution of Activities: In Alternatives

1 and 2, disturbances and treatments that affect

the mid-serai lower montane forest would generally be scattered throughout all subbasin groups.

In Alternatives 4 and 6, the prescribed natural

fire program (both planned and unplanned ignition) would play a primary role, with: some associated harvest, thinning, and prescribed fire treatments in subbasin group H; thinning, timber

harvest, and fuel treatments to reduce wildfire

risk prioritized in group F; moderate emphasis on

thinning, harvest, and fuel treatments in groups J

and L; and low emphasis in group M. In Alternative 3, the focus for these treatments would be in

groups J and L. Alternative 5 would have some

treatment focus on the mid-serai lower montane

forest, but the treatments would be prioritized in

groups L and M.

Late-serai Multi-layer Lower Montane

Forest —

Occurrence: Although most of this terrestrial

community is in the dry forest, some can occur in

the moist forest. The current level in the Eastside

EIS assessment area is about the same as the historical level on BLM- and FS-administered lands,

but lower than historically on All ownerships. In

the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area, the

current level of late-serai lower montane is substantially below historical levels within BLM- and

FS-administered lands and for All ownerships

(figs. 2.53 and 2.54).

Response to Alternatives: Figures 2.53 and 2.54

depict the response of the late-serai multi-layer

lower montane forest. In Alternatives 1 and 2,

there would be a strong increase in the amount of

late-serai lower montane, primarily due to management on BLM- and FS-administered lands,

but partially due to similar management on other

lands. The restoration emphasis alternatives (3

through 6) would have less of an increase in the

Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area; these alternatives would generally maintain the late-serai

multi-layer lower montane at its historical and

current levels on BLM- and FS-administered

lands as a result of harvest, thinning, and prescribed fire, along with the associated affects of

wildfire. Alternative 7 would be similar to the figure response in the reserve areas, and to Alternative 3 on the non-reserve areas. There would be a

substantial increase in the late-serai multi-layer

community on BLM- and FS-administered lands

for Alternatives 1, 2, and 7; and across All ownerships for all alternatives.

The increasing trend of this community on All

ownerships and in Alternatives 1,2, and 7 on

BLM- and FS-administered ownerships is related

to: 1) succession of mid-serai communities to lateserai, 2) traditional harvest treatments, which

remove larger commercial trees and leave live and

dead standing trees of sufficiently large size to still

classify as late-serai, and 3) fire exclusion. HowLandscape Ecology 203
ever, due to the loss of old trees, large snags, and

diversity of structure and composition, this community does not qualify as old forest. The composition of these structures tends to shift markedly

over time as species and individual trees of large

size and sound wood are selectively harvested; this

practice often results in the loss of genetic diversity. In many respects, these structures are very similar to the dense mid-serai structures discussed

above. Their risk of mortality from stress, insects,

and disease becomes very high, as does the associated risk of wildfire. Net productivity generally

declines.

In modeling disturbance probabilities at this scale,

we did not account for a higher wildfire or insect/

disease disturbance potential for differences in

conditions within the late-serai multi-layer community. Finer-scale modeling would have allowed

separate classification of these structures, showing

higher probabilities of mortality and fire disturbance that would have converted these structures

to either mid- or early-serai.

Community Transition: From the historical to

current period, this type primarily transitioned

from the mid- or late-serai single-layer communities. Some of this community was present in the

native regime on areas with infrequent crown fire

regimes. Transition from late-serai single-layer to

LATE-SERAL LOWER MONTANE FOREST MULTI-LAYER

Eastside E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

1,000,000

900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

All Ownership

Figure 2.53 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the late-serai lower montane forest multi-layer for the Eastside EIS area.

Landscape Ecology
multi-layer involves regeneration and growth of

shade-tolerant species into the understory. This

transition has typically been a response to fire

exclusion in underburning regimes that support

late-serai single-layer communities.

Development of these communities from midserai stages occurs when given enough time without a crown fire. In this transition, the native fire

regime often had mixed type fires that accelerated

the communities' development to late-serai multilayer structures through their thinning effect;

then, eventually, these late-serai were either converted to a single-layer by an underburn, or cycled

to early-serai with a crown fire.

Alternatives 1 and 2 would continue the mid-serai

forest's transition to this late-serai multi-layer stage.

Alternatives 3 through 6 would have patterns of

change similar to this type's native succession/disturbance regime, with much lower levels of net

transitions to the late-serai multi-layer stage, but

substantial increases in transitions to the late-serai

single-layer community. Alternative 7 would have

change patterns similar to Alternative 2 in the reserve areas, and to Alternative 3 in the non-reserve

areas. Alternatives 3 through 6 generally would

maintain an amount of this type on BLM- and FSadministered lands similar to the HRV. Across all

ownerships, the level of the late-serai multi-layer

lower montane forest would be much higher.

LATE-SERAL LOWER MONTANE FOREST MULTI-LAYER

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

100

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

All Ownership

1,200,000

1,000,000

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

100

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

» -*- -+- -•- -0- -*- -&-

Figure 2.54 —Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the late-serai lower montane forest multi-layer for the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

Landscape Ecology 2Q5
Composition and Structure: Although the structural stage class at this scale does not change, the

effects on composition and structure are dramatically different from the native regime. In general,

the structure of the late-serai multi-layer communities would be closest to the native composition

and structure in Alternatives 4 and 6, due to their

emphasis on mimicking ecosystem processes with

harvest, thinning, and prescribed fire treatments.

Alternatives 1 and 2 would tend to produce either

very dense, multi-layer communities subject to

high mortality as a result of fire exclusion, or

communities affected by harvest including the

removal of large, old trees and large snags.

Depending on the local priorities and degree of

ecological emphasis, Alternative 3 would produce

structures having moderate similarity to the native

regime. Alternative 5 would be similar to

Alternative 1 in the higher production areas, and

to Alternative 3 in other areas. Alternative 7

would have structures similar to Alternative 3 in

the non-reserve areas, and to current structures in

the reserve areas.

Fire, Disturbances, and Treatments: The current

late-serai multi-layer community in the dry and

moist forest is typically found in all fire regimes of

the dry forest. Historically, this type occurred on

the more moist landforms where climate and

topography provided for a regime that allowed

development of late-serai, multi-layer, shade-intolerant-dominated communities. These types

ranged in patch size from small to large, depending on the geographic area, terrain, and climate.

The historical harvest patterns, involving selection

of large older trees in combination with fire exclusion, resulted in development of multi-layer lateserai communities on steep dry slopes typically

subject to a more frequent mixed or crown fire

regime, and on benches and ridges historically

subject to relatively-frequent underburning.

Continued traditional harvest and fire exclusion

in Alternatives 1 and 2 would increase the amount

of this structure that is inconsistent with the

native succession/disturbance regime. Thinning,

harvest units, and prescribed fires in Alternatives 4

and 6 would produce patterns similar to the

native regime, except Alternative 6 would transition at a slower rate. Alternative 5 would have

moderate ability to shift patterns, given its economic priority limitations; Alternative 3 would

proceed at varying rates depending on local

emphasis. Alternative 7 would be similar to

Alternative 3 in the non-reserve areas, and would

cycle these types with wildfire in the reserves.

Spatial Distribution of Activities: In Alternatives 1

and 2, disturbances and treatments that affect this

type would generally be scattered throughout all

subbasin groups. In Alternatives 4 and 6, the prescribed natural fire program (both planned and

unplanned ignition) and limited associated harvest, thinning, and prescribed fire treatments

would have emphasis in subbasin group H; thinning, timber harvest, and fuel treatments to

reduce risk of wildfire prioritized in group F;

moderate emphasis on thinning, harvest, and fuel

treatments in groups J and L; and low emphasis in

group M. In Alternative 3, the focus for thinning,

harvest, and fuel treatments would be in groups J

and L. In Alternative 5, there would be some

focus on this type, but it would be prioritized in

groups L and M.

Late-serai Single-layer Lower Montane

Forest —

Occurrence: Most of this terrestrial community is

in the dry forest, but some can occur in the moist

forest. The current level is substantially lower

than the historical level within BLM- and FSadministered lands, and for all ownerships (figs.

2.55 and 2.56). The decline of this type was an

expressed concern in the landscape assessment

(Hann and others, in press).

Response to Alternatives: Figures 2.55 and 2.56

depict the response of the late-serai single-layer

lower montane forest. Alternatives 1 and 2 in the

EEIS area would continue the decline of late-serai

lower montane, essentially to the point of being

non-existent in the Eastside EIS area within 50

years. The restoration emphasis alternatives (3

through 6) would increase the amount on BLMand FS-administered lands to approximately 60

20S Landscape Ecology
percent of its historical level with thinning and

prescribed fire over the 100-year period. The historical level would be achievable, if the average

decade's management activities for this type were

increased by about 50 percent.

In the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area, the

amount of late-serai single-layer lower montane

on BLM- and FS-administered lands would

increase close to the historical level over the 100-

year period through thinning and prescribed fire.

For wilderness and semi-primitive areas where

achieving projected levels of this type would be

difficult, we assumed fairly active prescribed natural fire (planned and unplanned ignition). Alternative 7 would have a response similar to the figure in the reserve areas, and to Alternative 3 in the

non-reserve areas.

Community Transition: From the historical to

current period, there was no net transition to the

late-serai single-layer type, but rather a high transition from this type to mid- and late-serai multilayer stages. Historically, there was a high component of this community, mostly on areas subject

to frequent underburning that generally occurred

on bench and ridge type landforms where the climate, ignition frequencies, and fire behavior

maintained open (park-like) stands.

LATE-SERAL LOWER MONTANE FOREST SINGLE-LAYER

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

500,000

400,000

300,000

0

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

AH Ownership

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

200,000

Figure 2.55 —Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the late-serai lower montane forest single-layer for the Eastside EIS area.

Landscape Ecology 207

400,000

0

u

200,000

100,000
LATE-SERAL LOWER MONTANE FOREST SINGLE-LAYER

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

500,000

All Ownership

1,000,000

800,000

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

100

Figure 2.56 —Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the late-serai lower montane forest single-layer for the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

The transition from late-serai single-layer forests

to multi-layer forests involves regeneration and

growth of shade-tolerant species in the understory; this occurs as a result of fire exclusion in

underburning regimes that support late-serai

single-layer communities. The transition to midserai results from development of understory tree

layers, increased stress, consequent loss of overstory trees and retrogression to the mid-serai stage.

Alternatives 1 and 2 would continue transition of

this community to multi-layer or mid-serai. This

transition would be associated with high mortality

of large and intermediate-size trees from stress,

insect, disease, and wildfire, along with associated

effects of salvage logging. Alternatives 3 through 6

would have relatively high levels of net transitions

to the late-serai single-layer stage, with the transition pattern being similar to this type's native

regime. Alternative 7 would follow the predicted

transition for the reserve area and be similar to

Alternative 3 in the non-reserve areas.

Composition and Structure: The structure of the

late-serai single-layer communities would be closest to their native composition and structure in

Alternatives 4 and 6, due to their emphasis on

mimicking ecosystem processes with harvest, thinning, and prescribed fire treatments. Alternatives

1 and 2 would tend to produce multi-layer or

208 Landscape Ecology
mid-serai communities in place of the late-serai

single-layer community. Depending on the local

priorities and degree of ecological emphasis,

Alternative 3 would produce structures having

moderate similarity to the native regime. Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative 1 in the

higher production areas, and to Alternative 3 in

other areas. Alternative 7 would have structures

similar to Alternative 3 in the non-reserve areas,

and to current structures in the reserve areas.

Fire, Disturbance, and Treatments: Historical harvest patterns with selection for large older trees,

combined with fire exclusion, have shifted the

multi-layer late- and mid-serai types to the benches and ridges, which historically were subject to

relatively frequent underburning that maintained

the late-serai single-layer community.

The traditional harvest and fire exclusion in

Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in continued

decline of the late-serai single-layer type. Thinning, harvest units, and prescribed fires in Alternatives 4 and 6 would be similar to the native

disturbance regime. Alternative 6 would have a

slower transition than Alternative 4. Alternative 5

would have a moderate ability to shift patterns of

this type, given the limitations related to economic priorities. Alternative 3 would proceed at varying rates, given the local emphasis. Alternative 7

would be similar to Alternative 3 and would not

develop substantial amounts in the reserves

because of loss to crown fire.

Alternatives 1 and 2 would have no management

emphasis for late-serai single-layer communities.

In Alternatives 4 and 6, the prescribed natural fire

program (both planned and unplanned ignition)

would play a primary role, with: some associated

harvest, thinning, and prescribed fire treatments

in subbasin group H; thinning, timber harvest,

and fuel treatments to reduce risk of wildfire

would be prioritized in group F; moderate emphasis on thinning, harvest, and fuel treatments

would occur in groups J and L; and low emphasis

in group M. In Alternative 3, the focus for thinning, harvest, and fuel treatments would be in

groups J and L. In Alternative 5, there would be

some focus on this type, but it would be prioritized in groups L and M.

Montane Forest Response

Early-serai Montane Forest —

Occurrence: Although most of this terrestrial

community is in the moist forest, some can occur

in the dry forest. Its current level is substantially

above the historical level for the Eastside EIS area

and substantially below the historical level for the

Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area (figs. 2.57

and 2.58). The decline in the UCRB resulted

from transition to mid-serai of areas burned in the

late 1800s and early 1900s. Although most of the

current amount in both areas was created through

even-aged timber harvest treatments, some resulted from wildfires in the moist and dry forest

zones. Since most treatments were clearcuts or

shelterwood cuts at the time of harvest, there was

little or no live or dead-standing and down tree

structure representing this type's native composition and structure.

Response to Alternatives: Figures 2.57 and 2.58

depict the response of the early-serai montane forest. Under all alternatives, the amount of this terrestrial community would decline due to reduced

harvest levels, changes in types of harvest, and

succession to mid-serai communities. This decline

would be positive for the EEIS area, but is too

great in Alternatives 1,2, and 7 in the UCRB.

The restoration emphasis alternatives (3 through

6) would provide for less of a decline than Alternatives 1, 2, and 7. The primary disturbances producing early-serai montane forest would be:

• Alternative 1: harvest and wildfire

• Alternative 2: wildfire with some harvest

• Alternatives 3 through 6: harvest and prescribed

fire with some wildfire.

• Alternative 7: wildfire with some prescribed fire

and harvest.

Between the historical and current period, most

early-serai montane developed subsequent to harvest of late-serai single- and multi-layer forest, and

Landscape Ecology 209
wildfire in late-serai multi-layer forest. In all

action alternatives (3 through 7), the early-serai

would be produced primarily from the mid-serai

forest, with minor amounts from the late-serai

forest, while Alternatives 1 and 2 would continue

to harvest mostly late-serai forests.

Composition and Structure: In general, the structure of these early-serai communities would be

closest to the native composition and structure in

Alternatives 4 and 6, due to their emphasis on

mimicking ecosystem processes with harvest and

prescribed fire treatments. Composition and structure of this type have changed substantially due to

the loss of large, shade-intolerant western white

pine from blister rust, selective harvest, and salvage.

No other intolerant tree species of the moist forest

potential vegetation group can fill the same ecological role in these environments as western white

pine did in the native regime. It is unlikely that

any of the restoration alternatives have sufficient

emphasis on recovery of rust-resistant western

white pine to produce large trees even in the long

term, but Alternative 4 has the most emphasis.

Alternative 1 would produce early-serai communities similar to tree regeneration plantations, with

uniform spacing and size. Alternative 2 would be

predominantly small harvest units or areas of

wildfire that would be salvage logged and planted.

EARLY-SERAL MONTANE FOREST

Eastside E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

1,300,000

600,000

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

All Ownership

2,000,000

1,800,000

t/3

g 1,600,000

W 1,400,000

3G

1,200,000

1,000,000 ^-

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

Figure 2.57 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the early-serai montane forest for the Eastside EIS area.

210 Landscape Ecology
Depending on the local priorities and degree of

ecological emphasis, Alternative 3 would have

structures with moderate similarity to the native

regime. Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative 1 in the higher production areas, and to

Alternative 3 in other areas. Alternative 7 would

have structures similar to Alternative 3 in the

non-reserve areas, and to wildfire-created structures in the reserve areas.

Fire, Disturbances, and Treatments: The current

early-serai that was created in the moist forest is

typically in the wrong spatial location for the fire

regime. Historically, this type occurred on the

steeper landforms where climate and topography

supported a crown fire regime that cycled midserai communities. Past harvest patterns have typically created early-serai montane forests on terraces and foot slopes where the historical fire

regime was a mixed, creeping, spotting type of fire

producing late-serai structures; some were also

created on benches and ridges historically located

in a relatively-frequent underburning regime that

maintained open (park-like) late-serai single-layer

structures.

Harvest units and prescribed fires in Alternatives

1 and 2 would continue harvest in the same pattern as the current. Wildfire in Alternative 2

would tend to create this type in the wrong topoEARLY-SERAL MONTANE FOREST

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

2,200,000

2,100,000

2,000,000

1,900,000

1,800,000

1,700,000

1,600,000

\\N>

1,500,000

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

100

All Ownership

2,200,000

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

Figure 2.58 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the early-serai montane forest for the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

Landscape Ecology 211
graphic position, due to fuel accumulation on

benches and ridges. Harvest units and prescribed

fires in Alternatives 4 and 6 shift patterns to the

native regime, except that Alternative 6 would

transition at a slower rate. Alternative 5 would

provide some emphasis for shifting patterns of this

type, because of its emphasis on managing for

economic efficiency in the more productive moist

forest. Alternative 3 would proceed at a variable

rate depending on the local emphasis. Alternative

7 would be similar to Alternative 3 in the nonreserve areas, and to wildfire-created structures in

the reserve areas.

Spatial Distribution of Activities: In Alternatives 1

and 2, disturbances and treatments that create this

type would generally be scattered throughout all

subbasin groups. In Alternatives 4 and 6, the prescribed natural fire program (both planned and

unplanned ignition) would play a primary role,

with associated restoration, harvest, and thinning

treatments in subbasin group H; timber harvest

and thinning with fuel treatments to reduce risk

of wildfire prioritized in group F; moderate

emphasis on fuel and harvest and thinning treatments in groups J and L; and low emphasis in

group M. In Alternative 3, harvest thinning and

fuel treatments would be focused on groups J and

L. Alternative 5 would not have focus on this

type, but it would be created primarily in groups

L and M.

Mid-serai Montane Forest —

Occurrence: Much of this terrestrial community is

in the moist forest, but substantial amounts occur

also in the dry forest. The current level is much

higher than historical levels on BLM- and FSadministered lands and all ownerships in both EIS

areas (figs. 2.59 and 2.60).

Response to Alternatives: Figures 2.59 and 2.60

depict the response of this terrestrial community.

For all alternatives, the response pattern would be

a general increase for about 50 years, then a slight

decline to levels substantially greater than current

amounts by year 100 in the Eastside EIS area. In

the Upper Basin, the decline would occur to year

50 and then level at about the historical amount to

year 100. This decline is only partially related to

our harvest management activities; the primary

factor is succession from this stage to the late-serai

multi-layer stage in both the dry and moist forests.

Community Transition: From the historical to

current period, this type primarily transitioned

from the early-serai and the late-serai forests. The

net change from early-serai forests to mid-serai is

part of normal succession, whereas the net change

from late-serai forests to mid-serai is primarily a

response to fire exclusion, insect and disease maintaining the mid-serai, and retrogression from the

late-serai forests.

As a result of fire exclusion, the late-serai forests

convert gradually to mid-serai typically through

loss of the large overstory trees from stress, insect,

and disease mortality. This conversion is associated with a lack of understory- and mixedbehavior fires in the late-serai stage. Much of the

mid-serai stage also stays in the mid-serai stage

when there are no mixed-behavior fires to create a

thinning effect and accelerate growth of survivor

trees. Traditional harvest of large trees, leaving

the smaller trees, also causes this same sort of

retrogression.

We note the trend in mid-serai that first declines,

and then levels out between the 50- to 100-year

period, in the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS

area. Unless wildfires consume the late-serai, this

shift would occur as large amounts of late-serai

multi-layer communities retrogress to mid-serai. In

the Eastside EIS area, the trend of increasing midserai does not start to decline till after 50 years. In

contrast, the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS

area is currently declining and continues to decline

until the 50-year period and then levels out. Much

of the UCRB EIS area was in an early-serai condition at the turn of the century, fires were not

excluded until a later period, and harvest has not

been as extensive, in comparison with the EEIS

area. Consequently, the same trends are occurring

in both areas, but at very different times.

None of the alternatives would differ substantially

in the first 50 years, but by 100 years the restoration alternatives (3 through 6) would result in

212 Landscape Ecology
lower amounts of this type than Alternatives 1

and 2. The transitions from mid-serai in Alternatives 1 and 2 would generally cycle within the

community, or to late-serai multi-layer stages.

This pattern of change would be associated with

high mortality of large and intermediate-size trees

from stress, insects, disease, and wildfire, along

with the associated effects of salvage logging.

Alternatives 3 through 6 would have much lower

levels of net transitions to the mid- and late-serai

multi-layer stages, with increased transition to

early-serai stages. Alternative 7 would be similar

to Alternative 3 in the non-reserve areas. In Alternative 7 reserve areas, wildfire would convert

some mid-serai to early-serai communities, resulting in less mid-serai than in Alternatives 3

through 6. None of the alternatives would reduce

the amount of total mid-serai below the current

level, or even approximate a trend toward the historical level in the Eastside EIS area. In the Upper

Columbia River Basin EIS area, no alternative

would reduce the amount of total mid-serai substantially below the historical level.

Fairly rapid growth rates in the moist forest, along

with rapid regeneration, cause dynamic shifts in

mid-serai communities through time. The pattern

on all ownerships in the Eastside EIS area would

not shift substantially from the current amount,

due to the fairly high harvest levels in this stage.

MID-SERAL MONTANE FOREST

Eastside E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

1,700,000

1,600,000

1,500,000

1,400,000

1,300,000

1,200,000

1,100,000

1,000,000

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

100

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

All Ownership

2,800,000

2,600,000

2,400,000

2,200,000

2,000,000

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

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

Figure 2.59 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the mid-serai montane forest for the Eastside EIS area.

Landscape Ecology 213
MID-SERAL MONTANE FOREST

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

4,500,000

2,500,000

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

All Ownership

7,000,000

6,500,000

6,000,000

5,500,000

5,000,000

4,500,000

4,000,000

3,500,000

HIistoric 0 10 50

YEAR

Figure 2.60 —Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the mid-serai montane forest for the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

Composition and Structure: The large amount of

mid-serai forest in both the moist and dry forest

potential vegetation groups is of considerable concern relative to ecological process, composition,

and structure. This condition appears to be a

cumulative effect of several conditions:

• There are large amounts of early-serai in roaded

areas in the Eastside EIS area and moderate

amounts in the Upper Columbia River Basin

EIS area that are transitioning to mid-serai in

areas previously harvested or burned with wildfire.

• There is a large component of mid-serai, typically in roadless areas; it transitioned from earlyserai which developed in the late 1800s and

early 1900s as a result of large wildfires.

Currently, the mid-serai is stagnated due to the

lack of thinning-type fires.

' The Eastside EIS area has a large component of

late-serai, typically in roadless areas or often

associated with riparian environments; this lateserai is transitioning to mid-serai due to stress,

insect, and disease mortality of the large overstory trees from lack of thinning and mixed severity

fires.

1

 The Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area has a

large component of mid-serai in roaded areas,

which transitioned from late-serai single-layer

214 Landscape Ecology

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7
due to selective harvest of the large trees and

development of residual understory trees.

• There is also a large component of mid-serai in

roadless areas; the transition in these areas was

from late-serai single-layer, then into multi-layer

with fire exclusion, and finally into mid-serai

due to retrogressive loss of the large overstory

trees from stress, insect, and disease mortality.

It is apparent that none of the emphasis strategies

for the restoration alternatives (3 through 6)

would provide the level of activity to reverse these

trends, spatially or temporally, within the next 50

years. Since much of the area in this stage is also

present in large contiguous patches, the effects of

contagion from insect/disease mortality and wildfire would likely result in large crown fire events

and insect epidemics throughout all alternatives.

Although the extent of this effect was not predicted with our scale modeling, the result may reduce

the mid-serai stage due to production of large

areas of early-serai. This could have the undesirable result of losing remaining residual large overstory trees and late-serai patches contained within

the mid-serai matrix, the resulting effect being a

series of large shifts from high to low levels of

mid- and early-serai stages, with few other stages.

Composition and Structure: At a large scale, the

overall effect on the community structure and

composition is simplification related to the loss of

fire-related processes and departure from the

inherent succession/disturbance regime. The

future of the mid-serai montane community as a

whole is very unpredictable. Since much exists in

roadless areas that are strongholds for native fish

populations, and/or in watersheds with high sensitivity to roads and harvest activities, a design for

restoration of these landscapes would require hierarchical risk analysis.

In general, the structure of the mid-serai communities would be closest to the native composition

and structure in Alternatives 4 and 6, due to their

emphasis on mimicking ecosystem processes with

harvest and prescribed fire treatments. Alternative

1 would produce mid-serai communities with

uniform spacing and size. Alternative 2 would

produce many stands of high density and small

dead-standing and down trees. Depending on the

local priorities and degree of ecological emphasis,

Alternative 3 would produce structures having

moderate similarity to the native regime. Alternative 5 would have structures similar to Alternative

1 in the higher production areas, and to Alternative 3 in other areas. Alternative 7 would have

structures similar to Alternative 3 in the nonreserve areas, and to current structures in the

reserve areas.

Fire, Disturbances, and Treatments: The current

mid-serai stage in the moist forest is typically

found in all fire regimes of the moist forests. Historically, this type occurred on the steeper landforms where climate and topography provided for

a crown fire regime that cycled mid-serai communities to early-serai communities and accelerated

some patches into late-serai communities. Most

historical mid-serai structures had a scattered

component of large residual trees. Historical harvest and fire exclusion have produced structures

that are often very dense and have lost the scattered large residual trees.

Continued traditional harvest and fire exclusion

in Alternatives 1 and 2 would increase the amount

of mid-serai that is inconsistent with the native

succession/disturbance regime. Thinning, harvest

units, and prescribed fires in Alternatives 4 and 6

would shift patterns closer to the native regime

but Alternative 6 would transition at a slower rate.

Alternative 5 would have moderate ability to

emphasize a shift in patterns for this type, due to

its economic priority limitations. Alternative 3

would proceed at varying rates, given its emphasis

at a local level. Alternative 7 would be similar to

Alternative 3 in the non-reserve areas, and be

highly dynamic and variable in response to wildfire in the reserve areas.

Spatial Distribution of Activities: In Alternatives 1

and 2, disturbances and treatments that affect this

type would generally be scattered throughout all

the subbasin groups. Alternatives 4 and 6 would

emphasize the prescribed natural fire program

Landscape Ecology 215
(both planned and unplanned ignition), with:

some associated harvest, thinning, and prescribed

fire treatments in subbasin group H; thinning,

timber harvest, and fuel treatments to reduce risk

of wildfire prioritized in group F; moderate

emphasis on thinning, harvest, and fuel treatments in groups J and L; and low emphasis in

group M. In Alternative 3, the focus for thinning,

harvest, and fuel treatments would be in groups J

and L. Alternative 5 would have some focus on

mid-serai communities, but it would be prioritized in groups L and M. Alternative 7 would be

similar to Alternative 3 in non-reserve areas and

have few activities in reserves.

The most substantial risks would develop where

mid-serai montane forests are on the moist end of

the dry forest; on the dry end of the moist forest;

and in steep, rugged terrain in subbasin groups L,

F, and J.

Late-serai Multi-layer Montane Forest —

Occurrence: Much of this terrestrial community is

in the moist forest, but a substantial amount is

also in the dry forest. The current level is much

higher than the historical levels within BLM- and

FS-administered lands and all ownerships for the

EEIS area, but much lower for the UCRB (figs.

2.61 and 2.62). Most of the current late-serai

montane forest that is in roaded BLM- and FSadministered areas do not have old-forest attributes. A substantial amount of late-serai has been

harvested with selective cuts for large trees, leaving

a structure that meets the definition of late-serai

multi-layer but with very different characteristics

than the native structures. Some of the current

spatial placement of this type is in roadless BLMand FS-administered areas; structures here have

old-forest characteristics, but typically have much

higher density due to the exclusion of underburning, mixed severity fires, and the lack of ecological

harvest and thinning activities.

Large amounts of the late-serai multi-layer community have been historically and selectively

logged in a contiguous band from the Upper

Klamath to the Blue Mountains ERUs. This band

follows a general foothill and mountainous forest

terrain belt that is closely aligned with a high

lightning fire ignition probability. A similar band

occurs along the foothills of the Northern and

Southern Cascades ERUs where the mountains

meet with the breaklands of the Columbia River.

Similar bands occur along the wildland interface

areas of many subbasins in the Rocky Mountains

in the UCRB area. The subbasins in these areas

have many sensitive issues, including:

• High potential for crown fire and high severity

fires.

• Moderate to high amounts of urban/wildland

interface.

• High concern for maintenance of visual green

tree cover.

• Strong public sentiments against prescribed fire

and logging.

• Watersheds important for aquatic species.

• Various critical habitats for terrestrial species.

• Areas that are important as security/hiding cover

for big game.

Response to Alternatives: Figures 2.61 and 2.62

indicate the response of the late-serai montane

multi-layer community. In the EEIS area on BLMand FS-administered lands, all alternatives follow a

similar pattern of decline to year 50 and then a

leveling-off or slight increase. This is in response to

retrogressive mortality from traditional harvest and

insect, disease, and stress in Alternatives 1 and 2,

wildfire in Alternative 7, and restoration, harvest,

thinning, and prescribed fire in Alternatives 3

through 6. In contrast, the trend in the UCRB is a

steep increase in response to succession of midserai to late-serai in all alternatives with varying

levels of dampening effects.

In the Eastside EIS area, Alternative 1 would

show the strongest decrease in the amount of lateserai multi-layer montane forest over the 100-year

period, primarily in response to timber harvest,

with some wildfire. In the Upper Columbia River

Basin, Alternative 1 would show the least increase.

Landscape Ecology
LATE-SERAL MONTANE FOREST MULTI-LAYER

Eastside E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership All Ownership

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

600,000.

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

Figure 2.61 —Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the late-serai montane forest multi-layer for the Eastside EIS area.

The restoration emphasis alternatives (3 through

6) would result in a decline through the 50-year

period, reversing to an increasing trend between

50 and 100 years. This response would occur as a

result of harvest, thinning, and prescribed fire,

along with the associated affects of wildfire. The

shift in trend between 50 and 100 years would be

due to much of the current mid-serai stages in

roadless areas and early-serai stages in roaded areas

changing into late-serai stages. Alternative 2

would have much less reduction than those alternatives. Alternative 7 would have a similar transition curve to Alternative 3 in the non-reserve

areas, affected primarily by harvest, thinning, and

prescribed fire; there would be a steep decline in

the reserve areas under Alternative 7, primarily

due to wildfire.

Community Transition: The historical to current

transition to late-serai multi-layer montane forest

in roaded areas was caused by fire exclusion and

historical harvest. Traditional harvest treatment,

which includes the selective cutting of commercial

trees, typically leaves live and dead standing trees

of sufficiently large size that the community is still

classified as late-serai. However, such structures

are not similar to native structures and usually do

not qualify as old forests in terms of age and

structural diversity.

Landscape Ecology 217

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

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000
The composition of these structures tends to shift

markedly over time in response to selective harvesting of both the species and individuals having

large size and sound wood. This harvest practice

also often results in the loss of genetic diversity.

These structures are very similar in many respects

to the dense mid-serai structures discussed previously. Both structures have high risk of mortality

from stress, insect, and disease, along with the

associated risk of wildfire. Net productivity generally declines. In our modeling of disturbance

probabilities at this scale, we were unable to

account for a higher probability of disturbance in

these types compared to nonharvested patches.

Between the historical and current period, this

type primarily transitioned from the early-serai,

mid-serai, or late-serai single-layer communities.

Some of this community was present historically

on areas with mixed fire regimes, typically on

moist foot slopes; or within areas that had infrequent, creeping, spotting type fires, typically in

riparian areas. The transition from late-serai,

single-layer forests involves regeneration and

growth of shade-tolerant species into the understory. Such conversion occurs gradually as a result

of either fire exclusion in underburning, or mixed

fire regimes that support late-serai single-layer

communities. Late-serai multi-layer communities

LATE-SERAL MONTANE FOREST MULTI-LAYER

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

 u—

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

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

All Ownership

2,500,000

Historiic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

Figure 2.62 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the late-serai montane forest multi-layer for the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

218 Landscape Ecology

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7
also develop from mid-serai stages, given enough

time without a crown fire. Historically, mixedtype fires occurred often in the mid-serai stages;

through thinning, these fires accelerated their

structural development to late-serai multi-layer,

that was eventually converted to a single-layer

with an underburn or a cycled to early-serai with

a crown fire.

Alternative 1 would reduce the transition to lateserai multi-layer the most across all alternatives,

but would continue to create structures that are

inconsistent with the disturbance regime.

Alternative 2 would produce a slight decline in

the transition to late-serai multi-layer. Although

Alternatives 3 through 6 would slow the current

trend, between year 50 and 100 an overwhelmingly large component of early- and mid-serai would

shift into late-serai; these restoration alternatives

would not treat sufficient area to substantially

change this trend.

The overall future pattern for Alternatives 1 and 2

on the dry end of the moist forest, as well as the

moist end of the dry forest, would incur high

mortality of large and intermediate-size trees from

stress, insect, disease, and wildfire, along with the

associated effects of salvage logging. Alternatives 3

through 6 would have lower levels of net transitions to the late-serai multi-layer stage, and substantial increases in the transitions to the late-serai

single-layer community. This pattern would be

similar to the native regime. Alternative 7 would

be similar to Alternative 3 in the non-reserve

areas; in the reserve areas under Alternative 7, the

response would be highly unpredictable due to

the underestimated probabilities for large contiguous wildfires and insect epidemics in those areas.

In the future and for all alternatives, the increase

in the late-serai multi-layer structure would be

distributed through the same ecological reporting

units, and also into the Northern Glaciated

Mountains ERU in the Eastside EIS area, and

through most ERUs having high forest components in the Upper Columbia River Basin.

Surrounding the current core of subbasins with

this late-serai type, many more subbasins would

develop similar conditions as this type increases.

Composition and Structure: In general, the composition and structure of the late-serai multi-layer

communities would be closest to the native

regime in Alternatives 4 and 6, because they

emphasize mimicking ecosystem processes with

harvest and prescribed fire treatments. Alternatives

1 and 2 would tend to produce very dense, multilayer communities subject to high mortality from

fire exclusion, or communities where effects of

harvest remove the large, old trees. Depending on

local priorities and degree of ecological emphasis,

Alternative 3 would result in structures having

moderate similarity to the native regime. Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative 1 in the

higher production areas, and to Alternative 3 in

other areas. Alternative 7 would have structures

similar to Alternative 3 in the non-reserve areas,

and to current structures in the reserve areas.

Fire, Disturbances, and Treatment: The current

late-serai multi-layer community in the dry and

moist forest is typically found in all dry forest fire

regimes. Historically, this type occurred on the

moister landforms where the climate and topography provided for a succession/disturbance regime

that allowed development of late-serai, multi-layer

shade-intolerant-dominated communities. This

type ranged in patch size from large to small,

depending on the geographic area, terrain, and

climate. Historical harvesting, which involved

selection of the large older trees in combination

with fire exclusion, produced multi-layer late-serai

types on steep dry slopes typically subject to

cycling disturbances, and on benches and ridges

where the disturbance regime maintained lateserai, single-layer structures.

Continued traditional harvest and fire exclusion in

Alternatives 1 and 2 would increase the amount of

this structure that is out of proportion with the

native disturbance regime. Thinning, harvest units,

and prescribed fires in Alternatives 4 and 6 would

shift patterns to the native disturbance regime, but

Alternative 6 would proceed at a slower rate.

Alternative 5, given its economic priority limitations, would have moderate ability to emphasize

patterns. Alternative 3 would proceed at varying

rates due to local emphasis. Alternative 7 would be

Landscape Ecology 219
similar to Alternative 3 in non-reserve areas, and

similar to current conditions in the reserves.

Spatial Distribution of Activities: In Alternatives 1

and 2, disturbances and treatments affecting the

late-serai multi-layer montane forest would generally be scattered throughout all subbasin groups.

In Alternatives 4 and 6, the prescribed natural fire

program (both planned and unplanned ignition)

would play a primary role, with: some associated

harvest, thinning, and prescribed fire treatments

in subbasin group H; thinning, timber harvest,

and fuel treatments to reduce risk of wildfire prioritized in group F; moderate emphasis on thinning, harvest, and fuel treatments in groups J and

L; and low emphasis in group M. In Alternative

3, the focus for thinning, harvest, and fuel treatments would be in groups L and J. Alternative 5

would have some focus on this type, but it would

be prioritized in groups L and M.

Late-serai Single-layer Montane Forest —

Occurrence: Most of this terrestrial community is

in the dry end of the moist forest, or in the moist

end of the dry forest. The current level is substantially lower in the EEIS area and higher in the

UCRB than the historical level within BLM- and

FS-administered lands, and for All ownerships

(figs. 2.63 and 2.64). Historically, most land now

supporting this type supported the late-serai

LATE-SERAL MONTANE FOREST SINGLE-LAYER

Eastside E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

100

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

All Ownership

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

 u "-

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

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

Figure 2.63 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the late-serai montane forest single-layer for the Eastside EIS area.

22D Landscape Ecology
single-layer lower montane; in the moister environments, however, it supported western white

pine or western larch. In cooler environments,

lodgepole pine played an important role in this

community. Selective harvest of the large ponderosa pine, western larch, and western white pine,

in combination with fire exclusion, has resulted in

the current condition for the EEIS area. The

increase in the UCRB is primarily a result of fire

exclusion. The current structure is interim to the

mid-serai structures in both areas due to projected

mortality of the remaining overstory trees from

stress, insect, or disease or is interim to multi-layer

structures as a result of regeneration of shadetolerant species in the understory.

Response to Alternatives: Figures 2.63 and 2.64

depict the response of this terrestrial community.

In the Eastside EIS area, Alternatives 1 and 2

would continue the steep decline in late-serai single-layer montane forest from the current level, to

well below its historical level by year 100. In the

Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area, all alternatives would result in a similar steep decline of this

type. The restoration emphasis alternatives (3

through 6) would reduce this type's decline, but

would not have sufficient emphasis to stabilize its

decline at the historical level.

Achieving the historical level would be possible, if

the average decade's management activities for

LATE-SERAL MONTANE FOREST SINGLE-LAYER

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

400,000

100,000

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

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

All Ownership

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

100

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

Figure 2.64 —Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the late-serai montane forest single-layer for the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

Landscape Ecology 221
late-serai single-layer montane were increased by

about 50 percent, and if substantial emphasis were

placed on managing for western white pine in the

moister environments. It would be particularly

difficult to achieve an increase in wilderness and

semi-primitive areas. Alternatives 4 and 6 would

be most effective in recovery of the dominant

shade-intolerant tree species (western white pine,

western larch, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine).

Alternative 3 would have a moderate response.

Alternative 7 would be similar to Alternative 3 in

the non-reserve areas; in the reserve areas of

Alternative 7, the transition would continue to

late-serai multi-layer, except where wildfire would

shift many to early-serai communities.

Community Transition: In the Eastside EIS area,

between the historical and current period, there

was a transition to the late-serai single-layer montane forest, primarily from the mid-serai forest,

but also from the late-serai single-layer lower

montane forest. For the Eastside EIS area die

primary decrease in Alternatives 1 and 2 would be

to mid-serai stages. This pattern of change would

be associated with high mortality of large and

intermediate-size trees from stress, insect, disease,

and wildfire, along with the associated effects of

salvage logging. Alternatives 3 through 6 would

produce less decline than Alternatives 1 and 2 in

this type, but the declines would also be associated primarily with transitions to the mid-serai

stages. Alternative 7 would be similar to Alternative 3 in the non-reserve areas, but would result in

a steeper decline than Alternative 3 in the reserve

areas.

In the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area, this

stage increased from historical to current as a

result of transition from mid- and early-serai.

Future trends indicate transition via retrogression

to mid-serai stages. The transition to mid-serai

stages is associated with high mortality of large

and intermediate-size trees from stress, insect, disease, and wildfire, along with the associated effects

of salvage logging. Alternatives 3 through 6 would

slow the decline with some fluctuation. Alternatives 1 and 2 would have a similar pattern to

Alternatives 3 through 6, but with steeper

declines. Alternative 7 would be similar to

Alternative 3 in the non-reserve areas, but steeper

decline than Alternative 3 in the reserve areas.

Composition and Structure: In general, the composition and structure of the late-serai single-layer

communities would be closest to the native

regime for Alternatives 4 and 6. This similarity of

structure would result from the emphasis of these

two alternatives on mimicking ecosystem processes with harvest and prescribed fire treatments; and

also on regenerating species, such as western white

pine, western larch, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine, which are shade-intolerant and somewhat more insect-, disease-, and fire-resistant than

shade tolerant species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would

tend to increase the transition to mid- and lateserai multi-layer stages, which are currently well

above the historical levels. Depending on the local

priority and degree of ecological emphasis,

Alternative 3 would produce structures moderately similar to the native regime. Alternative 5

would be similar to Alternative 1 in the higher

production areas, and to Alternative 3 in other

areas. The non-reserve areas of Alternative 7

would have structures similar to Alternative 3, and

the reserves would have structures similar to the

current condition.

Fire, Disturbances, and Treatments: The combination of fire exclusion, blister rust, and historical

harvest patterns has caused the decline of shadeintolerant, large, older trees; this has resulted in a

predominance of shade-tolerant species in the

overstory that are much more susceptible to

insects, disease, and crown fire. Alternatives 4 and

6 most closely represent the native succession/disturbance regime. Moderate similarity is achieved

by Alternative 3, with less similarity for 7, 5, 2,

and 1, respectively.

Spatial Distribution of Activities: None of the

alternatives would substantially address the overall

problem concerning the amounts and rates of

change in the montane forests. In general, the

restoration Alternatives 3 through 6 would be

more proactive than Alternatives 1 and 2. Neither

222 Landscape Ecology
Alternative 1 or 2 would have management

emphasis for this type. In Alternatives 4 and 6,

the prescribed natural fire program (both planned

and unplanned ignition) would play a primary

role with: some associated harvest, thinning, and

prescribed fire treatments in subbasin group H;

thinning, timber harvest, and fuel treatments to

reduce risk of wildfire prioritized in group F;

moderate emphasis on thinning, harvest, and fuel

treatments in groups J and L; and low emphasis in

group M. In Alternative 3, the focus for thinning,

harvest, and fuel treatments would be in groups J

and L. In Alternative 5, there would be some

focus on this type, but it would be prioritized in

groups L and M.

Subalpine Forest Response

Early-Serai Subalpine Forest —

Occurrence: Most of this terrestrial community is

in the cold forest, but some can occur in the moist

forest. Also, most of the early-serai subalpine

forest is located on BLM- and FS-administered

lands. Its current level is substantially above the

historical level for both EIS areas (figs. 2.65 and

2.66). Most of the current amount developed as

a result of harvest in spruce cover types, blister

rust mortality in whitebark pine cover types, and

wildfire.

EARLY-SERAL SUBALPINE FOREST

Eastside E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

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

200,000

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

All Ownership

Historic 100

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

Figure 2.65 —Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the early-serai subalpine forest for the Eastside EIS area.

Landscape Ecology 223
EARLY-SERAL SUBALPINE FOREST

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

200,000

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

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

All Ownership

800,000

700,000

BQ 600,000

~

500,000

u

w

400,000

300,000

200,000

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

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

»-*--+- -*- -e- -*• -eFigure 2.66 —Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the early-serai subalpine forest for the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

Response to Alternatives: Figures 2.65 and 2.66

depict the response of this terrestrial community.

All alternatives would reduce the amount of this

terrestrial community due to reduced fire and harvest levels and the succession of the early-serai

subalpine to mid-serai communities. The specific

emphasis on recovery of whitebark pine in Alternatives 3, 4 and 6 should produce a more positive

result than Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternatives 3

through 6 would not reduce the amount of this

type as much as Alternatives 1, 2, and 7. The primary disturbances producing early serai subalpine

would be:

• Alternative 1: harvest and wildfire.

• Alternative 2: wildfire with minor harvest.

• Alternatives 3 through 6: harvest and prescribed

fire, with minor wildfire.

• Alternative 7: wildfire with minor harvest.

Composition and Structure: The ecological composition of early-serai subalpine forests has

changed substantially with fire exclusion, which

does not provide ash bed regeneration sites for the

shade-intolerant species. The composition of trees

regenerated in the early-serai stage are also substantially impacted by the decline in whitebark

pine related to blister rust. The concern for these

communities is that none of the other shade224 Landscape Ecology
intolerant tree species of the cold forest potential

vegetation group can fill the same ecological role

as whitebark pine in these environments. None of

the restoration alternatives (3 through 6) would

have enough emphasis on prescribed fire relative

to regeneration of rust-resistant whitebark pine to

carry whitebark pine through to dominance in the

mid- and late-serai stages.

In general, the composition and structure of these

early-serai communities would be closest to the

native regime in Alternatives 4 and 6, due to their

emphasis on mimicking ecosystem processes with

harvest and prescribed fire treatments. Alternative

1 would produce early-serai communities with

uniform spacing and size. Alternative 2 would be

predominantly small harvest units or areas of

wildfire that would be salvage-logged and planted.

Depending on the local priorities and degree of

ecological emphasis, Alternative 3 would result in

patterns with moderate similarity to the native

regime. Alternative 5 would be more similar to

Alternative 1 in the higher production areas, and

to Alternative 3 in other areas. Alternative 7

would have structures similar to Alternative 3 in

the non-reserve areas, and to wildfire-created

structures in the reserve areas.

Fire, Disturbances, and Treatment: The current

early-serai that was created in the cold forest is

often in the wrong spatial location for the fire

regime. Historically, this type occurred on the

steeper landforms where climate and topography

supported a crown fire regime that cycled midserai communities. Past wildfire and harvesting

patterns have typically created these types on foot

slopes, benches, ridge tops, or in riparian areas

where the historical fire regime was an underburning or mixed fire regime that maintained late-serai

stages.

Harvest units and prescribed fires in Alternatives

1 and 2 would continue harvest in the same pattern as current management. Wildfire in

Alternatives 1 and 2 would tend to continue to

create this type in the wrong pattern, due to fuel

accumulation areas affected by fire exclusion.

Harvest units and prescribed fires in Alternatives

4 and 6 would shift patterns to the native regime,

except that Alternative 6 would proceed at a slower rate. Alternative 5 would provide little emphasis for shifting patterns of this type due to low

economic returns. Alternative 3 would proceed at

a very slow rate due to the low local priority typically given to subalpine forests. Alternative 7

would be similar to Alternative 3 in the nonreserve areas; but in the reserves have a highly

unpredictable response, due to the dynamic

nature of wildfires occurring during drought years

in the cold forest zone.

Spatial Distribution of Activities: In Alternatives 1

and 2, disturbances and treatments that create this

type would generally be scattered throughout all

subbasin groups. In Alternatives 4 and 6, the prescribed natural fire program (both planned and

unplanned ignition) would play a primary role,

with some associated harvest treatments in subbasin group H. The emphasis on this type in the

other subbasin groups would not be substantial

due to their relatively low compositions of cold

forest and also the higher priorities on improving

conditions in the dry and moist forest potential

vegetation groups.

Mid-serai Subalpine Forest —

Occurrence: Most of this terrestrial community

occurs in the cold forest, but some is in the moist

forest. Most of this type occurs on BLM- and FSadministered lands. The current level is substantially less than the historical level in the Eastside

EIS area, but substantially more than the historical level in the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS

area (figs. 2.67 and 2.68).

Response to Alternatives: Figures 2.67 and 2.68

depict the response of this terrestrial community.

In the EIS areas, Alternatives 1 and 2 would have

moderate increases and then level out between 50

and 100 years, and Alternatives 3 through 6 would

have small increases over the 100-year period for

the Eastside EIS area.

In the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area,

Alternatives 1 and 2 would have moderate increases, then decline between 50 and 100 years to

slightly below the historical level. Alternatives 3

Landscape Ecology 225
through 6 would have strong declines to well

below the historical level by the 100-year period.

In both EIS areas, Alternative 7 would be similar

to Alternative 3 on the non-reserve areas. Wildfire

would be the primary disturbance on this type in

Alternative 7, where the response in the reserve

areas would be fairly unpredictable given the dynamic nature of large wildfires in the cold forest.

Community Transition: From the historical to the

current period, this type primarily transitioned to:

1) early-serai forests as a result of harvest in spruce

and the mortality of whitebark pine from blister

rust; 2) dominance by shade-tolerant, montane,

mid-serai trees; and 3) mid-serai subalpine forests

dominated by more shade-tolerant species, such as

subalpine fir and mountain hemlock. There was

little net change from these mid-serai forests to

late-serai forests.

This stage is generally found on the steeper slopes;

these areas usually cycle with a crown fire. The

cold forest's mid-serai stage typically remains in

that structure if fire does not occur, but becomes

more dense. Stress, insects, disease, or fire eventually produce mortality of the overstory and cycle

the structure to early-serai.

MID-SERAL SUBALPINE FOREST

Eastside E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

50,000

Historic 100

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

500,000

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000.

All Ownership

Historic

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

Figure 2.67 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the mid-serai subalpine forest for the Eastside EIS area.

22<B Landscape Ecology
MID-SERAL SUBALPINE FOREST

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

1,200,000

1,100,000

700,000

 u

-

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

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

All Ownership

1,400,000

1,300,000

so 1,200,000

w

800,000 .

Lx

-

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

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

Figure 2.68 —Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the mid-serai subalpine forest for the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

Alternatives 1 and 2 would continue the transition of early- and late-serai forest to mid-serai forest, while also maintaining much of the mid-serai

forest in the mid-serai stage. Although there

would not be a substantial difference in response

between alternatives, Alternatives 1, 2, and 7

would generally produce higher overall amounts

of this stage than Alternatives 3 through 6.

Composition and Structure: The composition and

structure of these mid-serai communities would

be closest to the native regime in Alternatives 4

and 6 because they emphasize mimicking ecosystem processes. Alternative 1 would produce relatively uniform patch patterns. Alternative 2

would produce stands of high density and small

dead-standing and down trees. Depending on the

local priorities and degree of ecological emphasis,

Alternative 3 would produce structures having

moderate similarity to the native regime.

Alternative 5 would have little emphasis in the

cold forest zone. Alternative 7 would have structures similar to Alternative 3 in the non-reserve

areas. Although the response in the reserve areas

under Alternative 7 over the long term may tend

to be similar to historical structures, the dynamic

nature of wildfire in the cold forest zone may preclude development of native patterns.

Landscape Ecology 22?
Fire, Disturbances, and Treatment: Continued traditional harvest and fire exclusion in Alternatives

1 and 2 would increase the amount of this structure that is out of proportion with its native disturbance regime. Thinning, harvesting, and prescribed fire in Alternatives 4 and 6 would shift

patterns to the native succession/disturbance

regime, although Alternative 6 would proceed at a

slower rate. Alternative 5 would have little emphasis on shifting patterns of this type, given its economic priority limitations. Alternative 3 would

proceed at varying rates due to its local emphasis.

Alternative 7 would be similar to Alternative 3 in

the non-reserve areas; in the reserve areas, the patterns are expected to eventually stabilize, but not

within the 100-year period.

Spatial Distribution of Activities: In Alternatives 1

and 2, disturbances and treatments that affect this

type would generally be scattered throughout all

subbasin groups. In Alternatives 4 and 6, the prescribed natural fire program (both planned and

unplanned ignition) would play a primary role,

with some associated harvest, thinning, and prescribed fire treatments in subbasin group H. No

substantial emphasis would be placed on this type

in the other subbasin groups due to priorities for

improving conditions in the dry and moist forest

potential vegetation groups.

Late-serai Multi-layer Subalpine Forest —

Occurrence: Most of this terrestrial community is

in the cold forest, although some can occur in the

moist forest. Also, most of this type occurs on

BLM- and FS-administered lands. Its current level

is substantially below its historical level (figs. 2.69

and 2.70).

Response to Alternatives: Figures 2.69 and 2.70

depict the response of this terrestrial community.

All alternatives would show an increase of this

community to its historical level within 50 years of

implementation due primarily to successional

development of mid-serai communities. Alternatives 1 and 2 would continue with a steady increase

above the historical level by year 100. For the EEIS

area, Alternatives 3 through 6 would increase to

the historical level by year 50 and level out at that

level through year 100. For the UCRB the

amounts would continue to increase. Alternative 7

would be similar to Alternative 3 on the nonreserve areas. Wildfire would be the primary effect

on late-serai subalpine in Alternative 7, where the

response in the reserve areas would be fairly unpredictable given the dynamic nature of large wildfires

in the cold forest potential vegetation group.

Community Transition: From the historical to current period, this type primarily transitioned from

early-serai forests to dominance by shade-tolerant

montane mid-serai or late-serai trees. This transition was a result of fire, harvest in spruce, and

mortality of whitebark pine from blister rust. In

the native regime, the late-serai multi-layer stage is

generally found on the foot slopes, riparian areas,

and benches, with a mixed or creeping/spotting

type of fire regime. If disturbance does not occur,

the late-serai multi-layer stage of the cold forest

typically stays in that structure but becomes more

dense. In the native regime, mixed or creeping/

spotting type fires thinned the stands and selected

against shade-tolerant species. Without these kinds

of disturbances, however, stress, insects, disease, or

crown fire eventually produce mortality of the

overstory and cycle the structure to mid- or earlyserai. Much of the cold forest's current late-serai

multi-layer is found on the steeper slopes where

there is high risk for crown fires.

Fire, Disturbance, and Treatments: Traditional

harvest and fire exclusion patterns in Alternatives

1 and 2 would increase the amount of this structure that is out of balance with its basic disturbance regime, particularly in the 50- to 100-year

period. Thinning, harvest units, and prescribed

fires in Alternatives 4 and 6 would shift patterns

to the native succession/disturbance regime, but

Alternative 6 would proceed at a slower rate.

Alternative 5 would have little emphasis on shifting patterns of late-serai multi-layer subalpine,

given its economic priorities. Alternative 3 would

proceed at a moderate level, due to its local

emphasis. Alternative 7 would be similar to

Alternative 3 in the non-reserve areas; the patterns

in the reserves are expected to eventually stabilize,

but not within the 100-year period.

228 Landscape Ecology
LATE-SERAL SUBALPINE FOREST MULTI-LAYER

Eastside E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

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

All Ownership

200,000

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000^

stork 10

YEAR

50 100

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

Figure 2.69 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the late-serai subalpine forest multi-layer for the Eastside EIS area.

Composition and Structure: In general, the composition and structure of these late-serai multilayer communities would be closest to the native

regime in Alternatives 4 and 6, because they

emphasize mimicking ecosystem processes.

Alternative 1 would produce relatively uniform

patterns. Alternative 2 would produce stands of

higher densities and more small dead standing

and down trees. Depending on local priorities and

degree of ecological emphasis, Alternative 3 would

have moderate similarity to the native regime.

Alternative 5 would have little emphasis in this

zone. Alternative 7 would have structures similar

to Alternative 3 in the non-reserve areas; the

response of structures in the reserve areas would

tend to be similar to current structures. However,

the potential dynamics of wildfire in Alternative 7

may preclude development of mid-serai structures.

Spatial Distribution of Activities: In Alternatives 1

and 2, disturbances and treatments affecting the

subalpine forests would generally be scattered

throughout all subbasin groups. In Alternatives 4

and 6, the prescribed natural fire program (both

planned and unplanned ignition) would play a

primary role, with some associated harvest, thinning, and prescribed fire treatments in subbasin

group H. Emphasis on this type in other subbasin

groups would not be substantial due to priorities

for improving conditions in other potential vegetation groups.

Landscape Ecology 229

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

4onnn
LATE-SERAL SUBALPINE FOREST MULTI-LAYER

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

Historic

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

All Ownership

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

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

Figure 2.70 —Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the late-serai subalpine forest multi-layer for the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

Late-serai Single-layer Subalpine Forest —

Occurrence: Most of this terrestrial community

is in the cold forest, although some can occur in

the moist forest. Also, most of this type occurs on

BLM- and FS-administered lands. Its current

level is below the historical level for the Eastside

EIS area and above for the Upper Columbia

River Basin EIS area (figs. 2.71 and 2.72).

Response to Alternatives: Figures 2.71 and 2.72

depict the response of this community. All alternatives would have a continued, steep decline from

the current level due to a lack of technology to restore whitebark pine and provide for underburning

and mixed regime fires that would maintain this

type.

The ecological placement of this type is typically

on ridges and benches in the cold forest at high

elevations, mostly in wilderness and semi-primitive areas. The predominance of prescribed natural

fire and unplanned ignition in areas that now

have high fuel loading would preclude this type of

fire behavior in most fire years. No alternatives

would successfully address this situation. Alternative 6, which has higher potential than the other

alternatives for technology development may

result in higher levels of prescribed natural fire

and planned ignition in these ecosystems.

Community Transition: From the historical to

current period, this type primarily transitioned to:

230 Landscape Ecology
1) early-serai forests, as a result of fire, harvest in

spruce, and mortality of whitebark pine from blister rust; and 2) dominance by shade-tolerant,

mid-serai montane trees, such as lodgepole pine.

This stage is generally found on ridge tops and

benches, which historically had underburning or

mixed type fire regime. These types of fire thinned

the stands, selected against shade-tolerant species,

and maintained herb- and shrub-dominated

understories. The late-serai stage typically loses its

overstory due to stress, insects, disease, or crown

fire. Most of the cold forest's current late-serai

single-layer community still remains in its ecologically appropriate landform.

Fire, Disturbances, and Treatments: Fire exclusion

and traditional harvest patterns in Alternatives 1

and 2 would increase the amount of this structure

that is inconsistent with the biophysical regime.

The restoration alternatives (3 through 6) do not

appear to take substantial action for planned ignitions of prescribed natural fires during conducive

weather conditions to provide for the native succession/disturbance regime. The non-reserve areas

of Alternative 7 would be similar to Alternative 3;

reserve areas would have highly unpredictable patterns due to wildfire's dynamic nature in the cold

forest zone.

LATE-SERAL SUBALPINE FOREST SINGLE-LAYER

Eastside E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

100

A1I Ownership

60,000

10,000

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

Figure 2.71 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the late-serai subalpine forest single-layer for the Eastside EIS area.

Landscape Ecology 231
LATE-SERAL SUBALPINE FOREST SINGLE-LAYER

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

100,000

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

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

All Ownership

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000.

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

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

• •«•-+•-•- -e- -*• -eFigure 2.72 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the late-serai subalpine forest single-layer for the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

Community Structure: In general, if there were

aggressive management actions, the composition

and structure of these late-serai single-layer communities would be closest to the native regime in

Alternatives 4 and 6, which place emphasis on

mimicking ecosystem processes. Other alternatives

would generally affect the structure and pattern of

this type negatively, due to inappropriate ecological

treatments in Alternatives 1 and 2, and the lack of

ecological emphasis in Alternatives 3, 5, and 7.

Spatial Distribution of Activities: In Alternatives 1

and 2, disturbances and treatments affecting lateserai single-layer subalpine forest would generally

be scattered throughout all subbasins. In Alternatives 4 and 6, the prescribed natural fire program

(both planned and unplanned ignition) may play

a role, with some associated harvest, thinning, and

prescribed fire treatments in subbasin group H.

The other subbasin groups would not emphasize

this type, due to their low priority for the zone.

Rangeland Potential Vegetation

Groups

The rangeland potential vegetation groups

include:

• Dry shrub

• Dry grass

• Cool shrub

• Woodland

232 Landscape Ecology
In the Eastside EIS area, there are 11,768,500

hectares (29,080,600 acres) of the rangeland

potential vegetation groups on BLM- and FSadministered lands:

4,348,700 hectares (10,745,873 acres), or 37.0

percent, in dry shrub

319,300 hectares (789,008 acres), or 2.7 percent,

in dry grass

899,200 hectares (2,221,972 acres), or 7.6 percent, in cool shrub

'Note: the GYE is incorporated in the UCRB EIS area numbers.

62,300 hectares (153,947 acres), or 0.5 percent,

in woodland

In the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area,

there are 18,492,800 hectares (45,696,709 acres)

of the rangeland potential vegetation groups in

BLM- and FS-administered lands:1

3,737,500 hectares (9,235,565 acres), or 20.2 percent, in dry shrub

666,300 hectares (1,646,463 acres), or 3.6 percent, in dry grass

UPLAND HERBLAND

Eastside E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

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

AI1 Ownership

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

100

Figure 2.73 —Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the upland herbland for the Eastside EIS area.

Landscape Ecology 233
1,973,300 hectares (4,876,131 acres), or 10.7 percent, in cool shrub

97,100 hectares (239,939 acres), or 0.5 percent,

in woodland

Upland Herbland —

Occurrence: This terrestrial community is common in all rangeland potential vegetation groups

and also in the dry forest potential vegetation

group. A shortage of upland herbland was identified as a finding of concern in the landscape

assessment (Hann and others, in press). The current level is only about half the historical level for

both EIS areas (figs. 2.73 and 2.74). From the

historical to current period, there was little upland

herbland created, except where minor fire and

seeding disturbance occurred in the upland shrublands and woodlands, and in the dry forest.

Response to Alternatives: Figures 2.73 and 2.74

depict the response of the upland herb community. All alternatives would increase the amount of

upland herbland as a result of fire and restoration.

The trend would be a steep increase in the first 50

years, then a leveling or decline due to succession.

The restoration alternatives (3 through 6) would

provide for the most increase of upland herb in

the Eastside EIS area; Alternative 1 would have an

intermediate increase; and Alternative 2 would

have the lowest increase. Alternative 7 is less than

UPLAND HERBLAND

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

2,000,000

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

 LJ—

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

100

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

All Ownership

4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000 "-1

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

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

Figure 2.74 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the upland herbland for the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

234 Landscape Ecology
Alternative 6 and greater than Alternative 3.

However, fires may burn with a high severity that

increases risk of exotic herb invasion in Alternative 7. Alternative 7 would have the largest

increase in the UCRB due to wildfire. Other

trends are similar to the Eastside EIS area.

Fire, Disturbances, and Treatments: Much of the

historical upland herbland developed into upland

shrubland, upland woodland, or early/mid-serai

forest as a result of fire exclusion.

Community Composition and Structure: In general, the upland herbland communities would be

closest to the native composition and structure in

Alternatives 4 and 6, due to their emphasis on

mimicking ecosystem processes with prescribed

fire, grazing, and restoration treatments.

Alternative 1, and the upland areas of Alternative

2, would produce structures trending toward simplification and monocultures. Depending on the

local priorities and degree of ecological emphasis,

Alternative 3 would produce structures with moderate similarity to the native regime. Alternative 5

would be similar to Alternative 1 in the higher

production areas, and to Alternative 3 in other

areas. Alternative 7 would have structures similar

to Alternative 3 in the non-reserve areas, and to

wildfire-created structures in the reserve areas.

Spatial Distribution of Activities: In Alternatives 1

and 2, disturbances and treatments affecting this

EXOTIC HERBLAND

Eastside E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0

z

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

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

»-*--+--•- -e- -*- -eAll Ownership

2,500,000

Bstoric 0 10 50

YEAR

100

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

»-•--*•-•- -0- -*r -eFigure 2.75 —Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the exotic herbland for the Eastside EIS area.

Landscape Ecology 235
type would generally be scattered throughout all

the subbasin groups. In Alternatives 4 and 6, the

prescribed natural fire program (both planned and

unplanned ignition) would play a primary role,

with some associated restoration treatments in

subbasin group H; moderate emphasis on prescribed fire and restoration treatments prioritized

in group F; moderate emphasis on prescribed fire

and restoration treatments in groups J and L; and

a moderate emphasis in group M. In Alternative

3, the focus for prescribed fire and restoration

treatments would be in groups L and M. In Alternative 5, the focus would be in groups L and M.

Exotic Herbland —

Occurrence: The exotic herbland community is

common in all rangeland potential vegetation

groups and in the dry forest. Ecological concerns

about exotic plants were discussed in the Landscape Dynamics assessment (Hann and others, in

press). The current level of exotic plant introduction and spread is substantially above historical

levels (figs. 2.75 and 2.76).

Response to Alternatives: Figures 2.75 and 2.76

depict the response of this terrestrial community.

In these two figures, the current level is higher

than the 10-year level because a different version

EXOTIC HERBLAND

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

Histonc 0 10 50 100

YEAR

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

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

All Ownership

istoric 0 10 50 100

YEAR

Figure 2.76 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the exotic herbland for the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

236 Landscape Ecology
of the broad-scale vegetation cover type map was

used, which showed less exotic herblands in the

current condition.

Due to these mapping difficulties with exotic

herblands, we are uncertain about their predicted

responses at the EIS assessment area, potential

vegetation group, ecological reporting unit, and

subbasin group levels. In general, because of

coarse-scale mapping and prescription models

being mapped at the forest and range cluster

level, rather than the subbasin or potential vegetation group level, the current amounts of exotic

herbs and their potential rates of spread may be

underestimated. The projected integrated weed

management programs may not be aggressive

enough to achieve the desired futures. Therefore,

the predictions should be used only as an index.

The trends and relative differences discussed

between alternatives, however, have moderately

high confidence.

Alternative 1 would have the greatest increase in

exotic herbland because the forest and resource

plans have high levels of disturbance and little

emphasis on weed management. This increase in

exotic herbland communities in Alternative 1

would result in ecological simplification and

monocultures. Alternative 2 would be similar to

Alternative 1 for upland areas, but overall would

UPLAND SHRUBLAND

Eastside E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

5,500,000

5,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

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

All Ownership

14,000,000

12,000,000

10,000,000

8,000,000

6,000,000

4,000,000 .

Historic 0 10 50

YEAR

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

Figure 2.77 — Trends from historic to current and ruture (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the upland shrubland for the Eastside EIS area.

Landscape Ecology 23?
have reduced amounts of exotic herbs due to

lower levels of disturbance. The more aggressive

integrated weed management efforts on containment and control in Alternatives 3 through 6

would maintain exotic herblands at their present

level. Of these, Alternative 3 would have an

emphasis level resulting in a more fragmented

approach, and Alternative 5 would tend to

emphasize areas where weed management resulted

in economic efficiency. The response of exotic

herblands in Alternative 7 would be similar to

Alternative 3 in the non-reserve areas, but relatively unpredictable in the reserve areas.

Community Transition: From the historical to

current period, the introduction and spread of

exotic herbs have been substantial, particularly in

dry forest, dry shrub, and dry grassland communities; and along roadsides and stream/river corridors. The composition and structure of most

exotic herbland communities is not similar to

native communities.

Upland Shrubland —

Occurrence: Although upland shrub is common in

all rangeland potential vegetation groups and also

in the dry forest, its current amount is below its

historical level (figs. 2.77 and 2.78). The shortage

of upland shrubland was a finding of concern in

die Landscape Dynamics assessment (Hann and

others, in press).

UPLAND SHRUBLAND

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

5,200,000

4,000,000 ^-

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

All Ownership

listoric 0 10 50 100

YEAR

Figure 2.78 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the upland shrubland for the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

238 Landscape Ecology
Response to Alternatives: Figures 2.77 and 2.78

depict the response of the upland shrub community. All alternatives would result in the continued

decline of this type due to succession to woodland

and conifer encroachment, exotic herb invasion,

fire exclusion in some areas, and increased fire in

other areas.

The restoration emphasis alternatives (3 through

6) would provide for a leveling of the decline at

about year 50. Alternatives 1 and 2 would have a

continued decline through year 100. Although

not graphed, Alternative 7 would be between

Alternatives 3 and 2.

Composition and Structure: In general, the composition and structure of the upland shrubland

communities would be closest to the native regime

in Alternatives 4 and 6, which emphasize mimicking ecosystem processes with prescribed fire, grazing, and restoration treatments. Alternative 1

would produce dense, uniform upland shrubland

or woodland/forest encroachment communities, or

conversion to exotic herbland; Alternative 2 would

be similar to Alternative 1. Depending on the local

priority and degree of emphasis, Alternative 3

would result in structures with moderate similarity

to the native regime. Alternative 5 would be similar to Alternative 1 in the higher production areas,

and to Alternative 3 in other areas. Alternative 7

would have structures similar to Alternative 3 in

the non-reserves and relatively unpredictable patterns in the reserves as a result of wildfire.

UPLAND WOODLAND

Eastside E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

550,000

500,000

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

All Ownership

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

800,000

600,000

 L

Historic 0 10 50 100

YEAR

Figure 2.79 —Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the upland woodland for the Eastside EIS area.

Landscape Ecology 239
Spatial Distribution of Activities: In Alternatives 1

and 2, disturbances and treatments that produce

this type through succession from upland herbland would generally be scattered throughout all

the subbasin groups. In Alternatives 4 and 6, the

prescribed natural fire program (both planned and

unplanned ignition) would play a primary role,

with some associated restoration treatments in

subbasin group H. Prescribed fire and restoration

treatments would have moderate emphasis in

group F, J, L, and M. In Alternatives 3 and 5, the

focus for prescribed fire and restoration treatments

would be in groups L and M.

Upland Woodland —

Occurrence: This terrestrial community is common in all rangeland potential vegetation groups.

The high amount of upland woodland communities compared to historical conditions in the

Eastside EIS area was a finding of concern in the

Landscape Dynamics assessment (Hann and others, in press). Its current amount is substantially

above the historical level in the Eastside EIS area,

but substantially below the historical level in the

Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

Response to Alternatives: Figures 2.79 and 2.80

depict the response of this terrestrial community.

In the Eastside EIS area, all alternatives would

reduce the upland woodland. Alternatives 1 and 2

would generally level out from the 50- to 100-

year period at the historical level. The restoration

emphasis Alternatives (3 through 6) would provide for a leveling at about year 50. Alternatives 1

UPLAND WOODLAND

Upper Columbia E.I.S. Area

BLM / FS Ownership

500,000

450,000

400,000

H 350,000

& 300,000

S 250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

Historic 100

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

All Ownership

900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

Historic 100

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

*-*--*- -•- -e- -*- -eFigure 2.80 — Trends from historic to current and future (100 year) projections for preliminary draft EIS alternatives 1 through 7

for the upland woodland for the Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area.

24® Landscape Ecology
and 2 would generally show a reduction to below

the historical level. Alternative 7 would result in

amounts between Alternatives 2 and 3. In the

Upper Columbia River Basin EIS area, all alternatives would result in increases well above the community's historical levels except for Alternative 7.

Composition and Structure: In general, the composition and structure of the upland woodland

communities would be closest to the native

regime in Alternatives 4 and 6, because of their

emphasis on mimicking ecosystem processes with

prescribed fire, grazing, and restoration treatments. Alternatives 1 and 2 would produce similar upland woodland communities which would

tend to be dense and uniform. Depending on the

local priorities and degree of ecological emphasis,

Alternative 3 would have structures with moderate

similarity to the native regime. Alternative 5

would be similar to Alternative 1 in the higher

production areas, and to Alternative 3 in other

areas. Alternative 7 would have structures similar

to Alternative 3 in the non-reserve areas and similar to current structures in reserve areas.

Spatial Distribution of Activities: In Alternatives 1

and 2, disturbances and treatments that produce

the upland woodland through succession from

upland herbland would generally be scattered

throughout all subbasin groups. In Alternatives 3

through 6, the general emphasis for management

of upland woodlands would be in subbasin group

L; and in Alternative 7, it would be in the nonreserve portions of group L.

Rangeland Riparian —

Occurrence: In the prescription mapping process,

Alternatives were mapped at the upland forest and

rangeland potential vegetation group level, not at

the riparian level. Current broad-scale mapping of

riparian areas generally overemphasize the large

polygons of riparian and underemphasize the narrow riparian areas. Because of this mapping, the

modeled projections were not specific to riparian.

The predictions should be used with caution and

only to indicate trends.

Alpine —

Occurrence: The alpine potential vegetation

group is very important as a sensitive ecological

environment.

Response to Alternatives: All alternatives place

emphasis on restoration in the alpine potential

vegetation group.

Fire, Disturbances, and Treatments: Activities such

as mining, reading, livestock grazing, and recreational activities have caused declining ecological

conditions in alpine communities. Also, the alpine

community is the most sensitive of all potential

vegetation groups to toxic air pollutants.

Composition and Structure: Because of the relatively-broad classification used in our modeling, none

of the alternatives showed any structural or composition changes in this potential vegetation group.

There is little guidance provided in the preliminary draft EIS Chapter 3 relative to management

or restoration of the alpine system. However, based

on the themes and DFCs, we assume the emphasis

for restoration would be high in Alternative 4 and

6 because of their emphases. Given the sensitive

nature of these environments, their future trend

would likely decline in other alternatives. The

decline would be somewhat less in Alternatives 3,

5, and 7, than in Alternatives 1 and 2.

Summary

We would recommend that any future analysis of

broad-scale communities as terrestrial habitats use

the physiognomic type groups (PVTs) 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.

Landscape Ecology 241
242 Landscape Ecology