United States Methods for Integrated Modeling Department of Agriculture of Landscape Change: Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Interior Northwest Landscape Analysis System General Technical Report PNW-GTR-610 September 2004 INLAS Integrated Multiple Management Objectives INLAS Project USDA FS PNW Research Station Technical Editors Jane L. Hayes is a research biological scientist, and Alan A. Ager is an operations research analyst, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850; and R. James Barbour is a research forest products technologist, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland OR 97208-3890 Photo Credits Top (fire) clockwise: EPS Team Photo Archive, Phil Howell, Evelyn Bull (woodpecker), Frank Vanni, Dean Parry, Jamie Barbour, Phil Howell, Jamie Barbour, John Szymoniak Contributing Authors Alan A. Ager is an operations research analyst, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850. [email protected] Marti Aitken is a resource information manager, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850. [email protected] R. James Barbour is a research forest products technologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205. [email protected] Pete Bettinger is an associate professor, Daniel B. Warnell School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. [email protected] Roger N. Clark is a research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, 400 N 34th Street, Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103. [email protected] Mark A. Finney is a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807. [email protected] David Graetz is a Ph.D. candidate, Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331. Jane L. Hayes is a research biological scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850. [email protected] Miles Hemstrom is a research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205. [email protected] Philip J. Howell is a fisheries biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Howell is located at the Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850. [email protected] Bruce Johnson is a fish and wildlife biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850. [email protected] Jeffrey Kline is a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331. [email protected] Gary J. Lettman is a principal forest economist, Oregon Department of Forestry, 2600 State Street, Salem, OR 97310. [email protected] Douglas Maguire is an associate professor of silviculture, Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331. [email protected] Robert Riggs is a research wildlife biologist, Boise Building Solutions, Northeast Oregon/Idaho Region, 1917 Jackson Street, La Grande, OR 97850. [email protected] Craig L. Schmitt is a plant pathologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Blue Mountains Pest Management Service Center, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850. [email protected] John Sessions is a university distinguished professor and Stewart Professor of forest engineering, Department of Forest Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331. [email protected] Ryan Singleton is a research forester, Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331. [email protected] Lowell H. Suring is a wildlife ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Terrestrial Wildlife Unit, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 316 E Myrtle Street, Boise, ID 83702. [email protected] Martin Vavra is a research range scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850. [email protected] Barbara C. Wales is a wildlife biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850. [email protected] Michael J. Wisdom is a research wildlife biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forest Service, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850. [email protected] Steven M. Wondzell is a research aquatic ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3625 93rd Ave., Olympia, WA 98512. [email protected] Methods for Integrated Modeling of Landscape Change: Interior Northwest Landscape Analysis System Jane L. Hayes, Alan A. Ager, and R. James Barbour Technical Editors U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, Oregon General Technical Report PNW-GTR-610 September 2004 Abstract Hayes, Jane L.; Ager, Alan. A.; Barbour, R. James, tech. eds. 2004. Methods for integrated modeling of landscape change: Interior Northwest Landscape Analysis System. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-610. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 218 p. The Interior Northwest Landscape Analysis System (INLAS) links a number of resource, disturbance, and landscape simulations models to examine the interactions of vegeta- tive succession, management, and disturbance with policy goals. The effects of natural disturbance like wildfire, herbivory, forest insects and diseases, as well as specific man- agement actions are included. The outputs from simulations illustrate potential changes in aquatic conditions and terrestrial habitat, potential for wood utilization, and socio- economic opportunities. The 14 chapters of this document outline the current state of knowledge in each of the areas covered by the INLAS project and describe the objec- tives and organization of the project. The project explores ways to integrate the effects of natural disturbances and management into planning and policy analyses; illustrate potential conflicts among current policies, natural distrubances, and management activities; and explore the policy, economics, and ecological constraints associated with the application of effective fuel treatments on midscale landscapes in the interior Northwest. Keywords: Forest simulation analysis, midscale, vegetation succession, disturbance, management. Preface The concept of a process for evaluating policy direction and management options for subbasin-size landscapes in the interior West evolved from the Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Research Initiative for Improving Forest Ecosystem Health and Productivity in Eastern Oregon and Washington. The Interior Northwest Landscape Analysis System (INLAS) project was initiated to explore this concept and began with meetings of resource managers and scientists from various disciplines and institutions. This group suggested ways to build an integrated set of tools and methods for address- ing resource management questions on large, multiowner landscapes. The papers in this volume are the outcome of these meetings and document our initial approach to develop- ing an integrated landscape analysis framework. Collectively, the papers illustrate the diversity of methods for modeling different resources and reflect the inherent complexity of linking models to create a functional framework for integrated resource analysis. We are still a long way from a perfect tool, the linkages among the chapters are not always apparent, and integration issues have not been consistently addressed. We cannot yet address the interrelationships between many key natural and anthropomorphic proc- esses on large landscapes. We also found that integration forced scientists to general- ize relationships and to summarize detailed research findings in order to incorporate their disciplines at the landscape scale of the INLAS framework. With a growing interest in integrated natural resource modeling, we concluded that, despite the fact that we have not solved all the problems associated with integrating information from different scientific disciplines, creating this document will provide a valuable resource for future researchers who want to understand how groups of scientists organize themselves for a project like INLAS. There are few examples of case studies of similar work in other regions, and to our knowledge, none that document such early stages of these projects’ organization. The reader can learn from both the continuity and lack thereof among the chapters, and perhaps use this publication to learn new ways to deal with the dilemma of how to hybridize long-term research lineages into coherent ways of thinking about integrated natural resource management. Acknowledgments We thank the many disciplinary experts who reviewed the individual chapters. We appreciate the thoughtful reviews of the entire document provided by W. Connelly, T.M. Quigley, and T. Spies. Thanks also to Judy Mikowski for assistance with formatting the entire document. For their continued invaluable input throughout the INLAS project, we thank Kurt Wiedenmann and personnel from the La Grande Ranger District. We are also grateful for the many contributions of Bob Rainville to this project. Contents 1 Chapter 1: A Framework for the Development and Application of INLAS: the Interior Northwest Landscape Analysis System R. James Barbour, Alan A. Ager, and Jane L. Hayes 17 Chapter 2: A State and Transition Approach for Integrating Landscape Models Miles Hemstrom, Alan A. Ager, Martin Vavra, Barbara C. Wales, and Michael J. Wisdom 33 Chapter 3: Application of the Forest Vegetation Simulator and Related Tools for Integrated Modeling of Forest Landscapes Alan A. Ager 41 Chapter 4: The SafeD Forest Landscape Planning Model Pete Bettinger, David Graetz, Alan A. Ager, and John Sessions 64 Chapter 5: Assessment Techniques for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Conservation Concern Barbara C. Wales and Lowell H. Suring 73 Chapter 6: Developing a Decision-Support Model for Assessing Condition and Prioritizing the Restoration of Aquatic Habitat in the Interior Columbia Basin Steven M. Wondzell and Philip J. Howell 82 Chapter 7: Modeling the Effects of Large Herbivores Martin Vavra, Alan A. Ager, Bruce Johnson, Michael J. Wisdom, Miles A. Hemstrom, and Robert Riggs 104 Chapter 8: Simulating Mortality From Forest Insects and Diseases Alan A. Ager, Jane L. Hayes, and Craig L. Schmitt 117 Chapter 9: Landscape Fire Simulation and Fuel Treatment Optimization Mark A. Finney 132 Chapter 10: Connection to Local Communities Gary J. Lettman and Jeffrey D. Kline 137 Chapter 11: Conflicts and Opportunities in Natural Resource Management: Concepts, Tools, and Information for Assessing Values and Places Important to People Roger N. Clark 153 Chapter 12: Analysis and Modeling of Forest-Land Development at the Wildland/Urban Interface Jeffrey D. Kline 161 Chapter 13: Evaluating Forest Products as Part of Landscape Planning R. James Barbour, Douglas Maguire, and Ryan Singleton 171 Chapter 14: Bibliography Marti Aitken and Alan A. Ager Chapter 1: A Framework for the Development and Application of INLAS: the Interior North- west Landscape Analysis System R. James Barbour, Alan A. Ager, and Jane L. Hayes1 Abstract The Interior Northwest Landscape Analysis System is a partnership among researchers and natural resource managers from both the public and private sectors. The project is an effort to increase our understanding of the role of vegetative succession, natural dis- turbance, and management actions at the watershed scale. The effort will advance the development and application of integrated landscape-level planning tools (models, meth- ods, and information) that use consistent assumptions and common data. Focusing on the subbasin (landscape units of about 202 300 ha) and smaller scales, we will demon- strate the use of existing and new landscape simulation tools to project future succes- sion, disturbance, and management under various policy scenarios. These scenarios will compare different approaches to achieving short- and long-term ecosystem goals and the effects of regulatory constraints, ownership patterns, and limited budgets. Of specific interest is the measurement of the long-term cumulative effects of fuels management and other treatments on key resources. The project is using a 178 000 ha watershed in northeast Oregon to prototype modeling tools and methods. The results of landscape simulations will help to inform the debate over sustainability of forest, range, and aquatic ecosystems in the intermountain West. Keywords: Forest simulation analysis, midscale, vegetative succession, disturbance, management. 1 R. James Barbour is a research forest products technologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW Main, Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205. Alan A. Ager is an operations research analyst, and Jane L. Hayes is a research biological scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850. 1 Introduction Despite a decade of scientific assessments throughout the interior Pacific Northwest (e.g., Caraher et al. 1992, Everett et al. 1994, Gast et al. 1991, Quigley et al. 1996) and elsewhere (e.g., FEMAT 1993, Johnson 1996), the debate continues over management of forested and range lands, and aquatic systems. It is clear from these and other analyses that decades of human activities to reduce the risk of unwanted disturbances like wild- fires and to extract goods and services have led to substantial changes in forest condi- tions and productivity. It is also evident that there is no simple remedy given landowner- ship patterns, ecosystem-level management objectives, existing landscape conditions, and the complex array of state and federal regulatory constraints (e.g., Clean Water Act 1977, Endangered Species Act [ESA] 1973, National Environmental Policy Act 1969, National Forest Management Act 1976). Large areas of forest land in the intermountain West remain in conditions lending themselves to uncharacteristically large and severe wildfires and insect or disease outbreaks (Ottmar and Sandberg 2001). The problems are compounded by finite budgets and changing economic conditions and social concerns that can contribute to constraints on land managers (Quigley et al. 2001). With the continued dispersal of human populations into areas that were once considered “wild,” the problem of how to manage for natural disturbance over large areas while not impinging on human populations or negatively affecting the conservation of rare or valu- able resources becomes increasingly complex. Much of the debate over how to manage federal lands is focused on the tradeoffs among active management to produce goods and services, moderate wildfire and other natural disturbances, and the long-term preser- vation of federally protected plant and animal species. A relevant policy question is whether short-term goals intended to protect aquatic and terrestrial habitat for species listed under the 1973 ESA might impede forest management activities that are neces- sary to improve the long-term sustainability of these species. In the Blue Mountains of northeast Oregon, management direction for resource protection and other amenities may prevent treatment of the majority of fuel-laden stands (Wilson et al., n.d.). Market conditions and operational costs further reduce the extent to which management can be applied to reduce risk from natural disturbances (Barbour et al., in press). One thing that is clear from these debates is that society as a whole does not share a common strategic vision of future forested landscapes. A blueprint for restoring and main- taining these landscapes is needed that considers the combined effects of forest suc- cession, disturbance, and management (Quigley et al. 2001). Many questions remain concerning efficient and cost-effective scheduling and spatial distribution of management activities, such as prescribed fire, thinning, and selective harvesting, on large landscapes to achieve specified goals over the long run (Finney Chapter 9). Further, we do not under- stand the long-term compatibilities among commodity production, recreational use, fire risks, fuel treatments, cumulative effects of management activities on key resources, and fish and wildlife habitat goals. Some hypothesize that restricting active management will eventually lead to large natural disturbances that will negate the net effect of protec- tive resource policies. Others feel that management itself poses the greatest threat to sensitive resources. Unfortunately, the debate has been fed, in part, from conflicting pro- jections of potential outcomes. Decisionmakers need unbiased and consistent informa- tion about the likely outcomes of different policies or management practices as they evaluate options. Landscape simulation tools can aid in the development of strategic visions for managing forested and range lands by providing a means to project long-term changes from suc- cession, management, and disturbance (e.g., Bettinger et al. Chapter 4, Johnson et al. 1998, Keane et al. 1996, Mladenoff and Baker 1999, Spies et al. 2002). Understanding 2