12 - 17 - ERDC/CERL TR ERDC/CERL Integrated Climate Assessment for Army Enterprise Planning Estimating Resistance and Resilience of Military Lands Using Vegetation Indices Ryan R. Busby, Dick L. Gebhart, Steven J. Oxley, May 2017 William D. Tarantino, and Wade A. Wall Engineering Construction Construction Laboratory Research Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) solves the nation’s toughest engineering and environmental challenges. ERDC develops innovative solutions in civil and military engineering, geospatial sciences, water resources, and environmental sciences for the Army, the Department of Defense, civilian agencies, and our nation’s public good. Find out more at www.erdc.usace.army.mil. To search for other technical reports published by ERDC, visit the ERDC online library at http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/default. Integrated Climate Assessment for Army ERDC/CERL TR-17-12 Enterprise Planning May 2017 Estimating Resistance and Resilience of Military Lands Using Vegetation Indices Ryan R. Busby, Dick L. Gebhart, Steven J. Oxley, William D. Tarantino, and Wade A. Wall Construction Engineering Research Laboratory U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center 2902 Newmark Drive Champaign, IL 61822 Final Report Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Prepared for Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington, DC 20314-1000 Under Program 622720896, Project 402188, “Integrated Climate Assessment for Army Enterprise Planning” ERDC/CERL TR-17-12 ii Abstract Military training inevitably leads to land degradation; however, some eco- systems have higher resistance and resilience to training based on the functional traits of existing vegetation, making them preferred for long- term use. This work estimated resistance and resilience for the continental United States using dominant plant species for numerous plant communi- ties, resistance and resilience values for plant functional groups, and na- tional community vegetation maps. Two datasets were combined to obtain greater detail and values for all land area. Results indicate that graminoid communities have the highest resistance values, and shrublands the low- est; and that eastern deciduous forests and prairies have the highest resili- ence values, and evergreen forests and shrublands the lowest. This lists the resistance and resilience values of a selection of Army installations using both datasets and a new combined metric. This new method will help the Army determine the portfolio of installations that will best meet its future training land requirements. DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Ci- tation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents. DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED. DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR. ERDC/CERL TR-17-12 iii Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................... ii Figures and Tables ........................................................................................................................................ iv Preface ............................................................................................................................................................. v 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Objective .......................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Approach ......................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Scope ............................................................................................................................... 5 2 Resistance and Resilience in Natural Plant Communities .......................................................... 6 3 Methods and Materials ........................................................................................................................ 9 3.1 Estimation of resistance and resiliency values ............................................................. 9 3.2 Plant community data .................................................................................................. 10 3.3 Data analysis................................................................................................................. 11 4 Results and Discussion ......................................................................................................................12 4.1 General results.............................................................................................................. 12 4.2 Implications for the Army .............................................................................................. 24 5 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 33 Appendix A: Summary Tables ................................................................................................................... 35 Appendix B: Dominant Species’ Resistance and Resilience Values From USGS National Vegetation Classification Community Types................................................................. 39 Appendix C: Dominant Species’ Resistance and Resilience Values from Küchler Potential Vegetation Community Types ...................................................................................... 126 Appendix D: Resistance and Resilience Values from USGS National Vegetation Classification Community Types ................................................................................................... 133 Appendix E: Resistance and Resilience Values from Küchler Potential Vegetation Community Types ............................................................................................................................. 145 References ................................................................................................................................................ 148 Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. 153 Report Documentation Page (SF 298) ................................................................................................ 155 ERDC/CERL TR-17-12 iv Figures and Tables Figures 1 Bailey Ecoregion Divisions ............................................................................................................. 3 2 Küchler vegetation resistance and resilience map for the United States. High values denote resistance and resilience to trampling and vehicular disturbance .............. 13 3 NatureServe vegetation resistance and resilience map for the United States. High values denote resistance and resilience to trampling and vehicular disturbance ................................................................................................................................... 14 4 Average vegetation resistance and resilience values based on the Combined Küchler and NatureServe Vegetation maps ............................................................................. 15 5 Küchler vegetation resistance and resilience maps for the United States. High values denote resistance to trampling and vehicular disturbance ....................................... 17 6 NatureServe vegetation resistance and resilience maps for the United States. High values denote resistance to trampling and vehicular disturbance .............................. 20 7 Combined Küchler and NatureServe Vegetation resistance and resilience maps. High values denote resistance to trampling and vehicular disturbance .............................. 22 8 Correlation between the Küchler and NatureServe RRVAL and the ecosystem resilience values as estimated using subject matter expert opinion in Doe et al. (1999). Numbers refer to Bailey Ecoregions (Bailey 1980: See Fig. 1). Correlation is 0.39. After the removal of three outlier ecoregions (3, 4, and 13; data not shown.) correlation was 0.83 ..................................................................................................... 25 9 Average vegetation resistance and resilience values for Fort Benning Military Reservation (Georgia). Separate resistance and resilience values are included in Appendices D and E ..................................................................................................................... 29 10 Combined Küchler and NatureServe Vegetation resistance and resilience maps for Fort Benning Military Reservation (Georgia) ....................................................................... 30 Tables 1 Resilience and resistance values assigned to plant functional groups .................................. 9 2 Mean RRVAL for the Küchler, NatureServe, and Combined vegetation