CHAPTER 7 

Ecological Integrity, 

Socioeconomic 

Resiliency, and 

Trends in Risk 

Thomas M. Quigley 

Danny C. Lee 

Richard W. Haynes 

James R. Sedell 

Richard S. Holthausen 

Wendel J. Hann 

Bruce E. Rieman 

Bruce G. Marcot 

Amy L. Horne 
•&38 Integrity, Resiliency, Risk

Thomas M. Quigley is a range scientist/economist with the USDA Forest Service, Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA.

Danny C. Lee is a research biologist with the USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station,

Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Boise, ID.

Richard W Haynes is a research forester with the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Portland, OR.

James R. Sedell is a principal research biologist with the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

Richard S. Holthausen is a wildlife biologist with the USDA Forest Service, Washington Office,

Terrestrial Habitat Ecology Program, Corvallis, OR.

Wendel J. Hann is a landscape ecologist with the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project, Walla Walla, WA/Boise, ID.

Bruce E. Rieman is a research fisheries biologist with the USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research

Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Boise, ID.

Bruce G. Marcot is a wildlife ecologist with the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station, Pordand, OR

Amy L. Home is a research forester with the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,

Portland, OR.
TABLE OF 

CONTENTS 

Ecological Integrity 

Composite Ecological Integrity 

Trends in Composite Ecological Integrity 

Methods 

Results and Discussion 

Social and Economic Resiliency 

Current Socioeconomic Resiliency 

Low socioeconomic resiliency rating 

Medium socioeconomic resiliency rating 

High socioeconomic resiliency rating 

Trends in Socioeconomic Resiliency 

Risk Assessment: Human Ecological Interactions 

Current Risks Associated with Human-wildland Interaction 

Trends in Risks Associated with Human-ecological Interaction 

Results and Discussion 

Acknowledgments 

Literature Cited 

839 

840 

841 

841 

845 

855 

855 

855 

857 

857 

857 

860 

860 

860 

860 

875 

876 

•..~.~..~`~.~'~.~....~...~....~....~..~........`.`....~...~'.~..~'...~....~.~..~..--.....~...~...~.........~....`..v. 

Integrity, Resiliency, Risk 
•838 Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
The Draft Environmental Impact Statements ed as disturbances within the wildland system

describe two primary needs underlying the pro- come in conflict with human assets. These trends

posed action: (1) restore and maintain long-term are projected for each alternative. They provide

ecosystem health and integrity; and (2) support useful estimates to show how FS and BLM manthe economic and/or social needs of people, cul- agement as proposed in the alternatives might

tures, and communities, and provide sustainable influence ecological integrity and socioeconomic

and predictable levels of products and services. resiliency. These estimates are not intended to be

The needs are linked with specific goals selected measures of final outcomes, but are an indication

by the EIS teams. The goals they identified of the direction of movement brought on by the

include: 1) maintain, and where necessary restore, implementation of each EIS alternative. Each

the long-term health and integrity of forest, alternative was evaluated to project how the

rangeland, aquatic, and riparian ecosystems; 2) actions of the FS and BLM would contribute to

provide sustainable and predictable levels of prod- integrity, socioeconomic resiliency, and human

ucts and services within the capability of the ecological interactions,

ecosystem; 3) provide opportunities for diverse

cultural, recreational, and aesthetic experiences ECOlOffJCfll IntG^TitV

within the capability of the ecosystem; 4) contribute to the recovery and delisting of threatened It is recognized that there are no direct measures of

and endangered species; and, 5) manage natural ecological integrity and that assessing integrity

resources consistent with treaty and trust responsi- requires comparisons against a set of ecological

bilities to American Indian tribes (Preliminary conditions and against a set of clearly stated manDraft EISs 1996'). These needs and goals imply agement goals and objectives (Woodley, Kay, and

the desire to achieve and maintain ecological Francis 1993). This process is not strictly a scientifintegrity at a high level. These needs and goals ic endeavor (Wickium and Davies 1995), because

were examined by addressing ecological integrity,

 to

 provide meaning, ecological integrity must be

socioeconomic resiliency, and the risks associated grounded to desired outcomes. The overriding ecowith human ecological interactions. logical outcome expected, as articulated in the EIS

Alternatives for FS- and BLM-administered lands

A composite estimate of current ecological integri- within the Basiri) is to maintain or enhance ecosysty was developed across the entire Basin for all FS- tem or

 ecological integrity,

and BLM-administered land and the trend in ecological integrity was estimated for each alternative High levels of ecological integrity are dependent

over the next 100 years. This required identifica-

 on:

 the maintenance of evolutionary and ecological

tion of the current condition of specific ecological processes, such as types and frequencies of disturintegrity components (aquatic/riparian, forest, bances, water cycling, energy flow, and nutrient

rangeland, and hydrologic) (Quigley and others cycling; ecosystem functions and processes that

1996). Current socioeconomic resiliency was esti- operate on multiple ecological domains and evolumated for social and economic systems, and its tionary time frames; and, viable populations of

variation across the Basin was described (Quigley native and desired non-native species (see Haynes

and others 1996). The trends in risk associated and others 1996 for a broader discussion). These

with human ecological interaction represents the processes and functions have transitioned from hischange expected to result from people interacting toric ranges of conditions to their present status,

with the wildland system, and the change expect- The basic components of ecological integrity

'On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar Street, Walla Walla, Washington 99362.

Integrity, Resiliency, Risk 83S
include the forest, range, and aquatic systems with undoubtedly will be refined as additional infbrmaa hydrologic system interconnecting the landscape tion becomes available. Given more time and

into a whole. High integrity for these components information, integrity indices might have included

can be defined: direct consideration for elements such as recovery

... . . . i . x cycles, synereistic interactions between environA forest and range (terrestrial environment) memaj com*onems

 ^ biophysical linkageS) ^

system that exhibits high integrity is defined fcedback mechanisms m on differem

here as a mosaic of plant and animal communi- ^ ^j ora] scales within the ^

ties, consisting of well connected, high-quality

*X°lTrlB^e±itf±±d Composite Ecological Integrity

desired non-native species, the appropriate Subbasins (approximately 325,000 to 400,000

expression of potential life histories and taxo- hectares in size) were rated as having high, medinomic lineages, and the taxonomic and genetic uni) or

 low ecological integrity for: forest lands,

diversity necessary for long-term persistence rangelands, forest and rangeland hydrologic sysand adaptation in a variable environment. temS)

 and aquatic systems (Sedell and others

An aquatic system that exhibits high integrity is

 1996>- ^ °f

 *f

 164 sak^ ^ *? J^

defined here as a mosaic of well connected, was rated, and ratings considered all ownerships

high-quality water and habitats that support a wlthin ^ Basm'

 T^ actual r*anf combined

.

diverse assemblage of native and desired non- ^TM bas<;

don

 descriptive data layers, empirical

native species, the fall expression of appropriate Process models, trend analysis, and expert judgpotential life histories and dispersal mecha- ment The basic data sets on which the ratings

nisms, and the genetic diversity necessary for

 wef ******* aggregations of data from broadlong-term persistence and adaptation in a vari-

 scale ma? &emes> ^watershed information or

able environment.

 model

 ProJ

e

««>ns (Quigley and others 1996).

Landscapes jointly encompass the terrestrial

 These basic la

y

ers

 Provided ^f

 backdr°P for

 «f'

and aquatic environments. A hydrologic net- "^/o^ f C°

m

P°SIte <jc°

loflcal

.

 mteSnt

y

 for

L

work operates within basins on the landscape. fS- and BLM-administered lands within each subA hydrologic system that exhibits high integrity

 basm'

 L

The

 Component integrity layers were used

is defined here as a network of streams, along

 wlth

 ^ in^tion brought forward through the

with their unique ground water ecosystems, assessment (Quigley and Arbelb,de in press), the

within the broader landscape where the upland, evaluation of alternatives which included a discusfloodplain, and riparian areas have resilient veg- »°n of k^

)C

 T8"*7' TTM5^ ^T^ jetation, where the capture, storage, and release (Marcot 1996) and our understanding of condiof water limits the effects of sedimentation and

 tlons

 ^dtrends'. to estimate the current composite

erosion, and where infiltration, percolation, ecological integrity for each subbasm (map 7.1).

and nutrient cycling provide for diverse and Composite integrity was estimated by comparing

productive aquatic and terrestrial ** «TMP°n«K ""*g"«y

 ratings

 and knowledge of

environments. ^ ?n-the^ound conditions with how each

subbasm met the definitions described previously

These estimates of integrity and resiliency are pre- for systems with high ecological integrity.

sented as initial estimates based on our under- . . ..... . .

standing of the information available. Absolute

 The comP°s

'te ecological integrity ratings are relalevels of integrity or resiliency within the Basin are

 tlve

,

measures wlthin

 ^ Basm-

 Hl& comP^f

not presumed to have been measured nor revealed. ecological integrity indicates that, relative to the

Rather, these represent the first attempt at estimat- ^ subba*f ^in^

e

 ^essment area, a subing relative integrity at this spatial level and

 basm meets the defini

»

ons of

 ^ integ

rit

y

 more

S4H Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
than those subbasins rated as medium or low. At Methods — To identify expected trends in cornpresent 26 percent of the FS- and BLM-adminis- posite ecological integrity under each of the altertered lands within the Basin are rated as high natives, a set of indices was generated based on

integrity, 29 percent are rated as medium, and 45 expected changes in vegetation structure and cornpercent are in low ecological integrity (fig. 7.la position, changes in road densities, and riparian

and 7.1b). Of the total area within the Basin that management for each alternative. An intermediate

is rated as having high composite ecological score for vegetation was generated based on potenintegrity, 84 percent is on lands administered by tial vegetation type (forest or range) and the prethe FS and BLM. A rating of low does not neces- scription models (see the Landscape Ecology secsarily translate to "bad" or "poor". For instance, tion of this report for detail concerning prescripmany of the subbasins rated as having low ecolog- tions) applied within each alternative (table 7.2).

ical integrity include large areas of farmland. Intermediate scores were generated for each 1-

These areas are important and may be functioning square-kilometer pixel within the Basin using the

just as society would have them function. rule set in table 7.2, and the potential vegetation

maps and prescription allocations developed by the

Trends ill Composite Ecological landscape staff. Mean scores were calculated for

Integrity each subbasin based on an aggregation of FS- or

® BLM- administered land only. The mean intermeTrends in ecological integrity for FS- and BLM- diate scores were used in combination with the

administered lands are dependent on current current rating of composite integrity to derive an

integrity, future management actions (such as tim- index of expected change (table 7.3). This index

ber harvest, prescribed fire, grazing, and restora- (vegidx) assumed values of-1, 0, or +1, where the

tion), and unplanned disturbance events (such as sign of the index refers to expected direction of

fire, flood, insects, disease, and climate variation). change in ecological integrity (that is, -1 indicates

Basic rule sets were developed to predict trends in that ecological integrity as reflected in vegetation is

integrity for FS- and BLM-administered lands. expected to decline; +1 suggests improvement, and

No attempt was made to project the component 0 suggests no change). No attempt was made to

integrity elements directly. The projections avail- quantify the magnitude of the expected change,

able through the evaluation of alternatives were

examined to determine which ones might provide

 A similar index

 <r^

 was

 constructed based on

the most universal predictors of change in integri- *c Projections of future road densities (resulting

ty. Three primary indicators were chosen to use;

 from

 *e application of rule sets associating mteneach is equally weighted in its contribution to

 SIV °{

, *""« management activity and current

composite ecological integrity trends: forest and

 road

 densities) and our interpretation of the

rangeland vegetation (as integrated indicators of potential ecological ramifications of changing road

such elements as disturbance, succession, manage- densities. Two measures for each subbasin were

ment activities, exotics, and habitat); riparian calculated. One was the combined change in the

management (as indicators of such elements as proportion of FS- and BLM-administered ands

aquatic environment, riparian communities, con-

 wlthm each

 subbasin with less than 0.1 miles of

nectivity of riparian and aquatic ecosystems across

 road

 Per s<l

uare mlle

 &* Pro)

ected b7 the sPatlal

the FS and BLM landscapes, fragmentation, and

 anal

y

sls team)' Tms was referred to

 «

 the change

habitats); and, road density changes (as indicators

 m low

 TMad density. The second measure change

of such elements as change in erosion, sediment,

 m hl8h road denslt

y>

 measured an

 equivalent

terrestrial habitat fragmentation, and exotic intro-

 change in the FS' and

 BLM-administered area

ductions). A broad array of elements contribute to

 with

 Sreater than 17 road miles Pef

 S1uare mik

integrity trends and are represented by these three

 These

 measures of change m road density were

proxies (table 7 1)

 used

 ^onS TMlt"

 tne

 current composite integrity

rating to assign rdidx values (table 7.4).

Integrity, Resiliency, Risk 841
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk 

Map 7.1 - Composite ecological integrity ratings synthesized the forest, rangeland, forest and rangeland hydrologic, and aquatic component 

integrity ratings. 
Figure 7.la- Percent of the Basin by composite ecological integrity.

Figure 7.1b — Percent of FS- and BLM-administered land by composite ecological integrity.

Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Table 7.1- Proxies or indicators used to estimate trends in ecological integrity for the EIS alternatives.

Proxy Represents

Forest and Range Vegetation • Trends in susceptibility to severe and frequent fires

• Trends in susceptibility to insect and disease outbreaks

• Trends in stand structure and composition

• Changes resulting from management activities

- traditional commodity or conservation emphasis

- ecological emphasis - thinning from below, grazing systems, prescribed

fire, riparian management

• Trends in containment and eradication of exotics

Riparian Management «Trends in aquatic ecological function

• Trends in water quality

• Trends in riparian vegetation

- Forested mature or late serai stage

- Rangeland cover and density

• Trends in habitat connectivity for riparian and aquatic ecosystems across the

landscape

• Trends in diverse habitats for riparian communities

Road density change • Terrestrial habitat trajectories

• Trends in hydrologic function

• Trends in sedimentation and erosion

• Trends in the introduction and spread of exotics

• Trends in the risks for fire occurrence

• Trends in habitat fragmentation

Table 7.2 - Intermediate scores used in the calcu- Table 7.3 - Rule set for determining the expected

lation of directional changes in integrity for each directional change (vegidx) in ecological integrity,

combination of prescription model and major based on current composite integrity rating and

vegetation group (forest or rangeland). Scores mean intermediate vegetation score for each

range from -5 (traditional production emphasis), subbasin.

to 0 (conserve existing structure and composition), to +5 (maximum restoration consistent with Current

i-i- i i \ Composite Mean

biophysical template). Potential Integrity Intermediate

: ;—— Vegetation Rating Score Vegidx Forest Rangeland — —

Prescription Model score score Forest Low -5 to 3 -1

r; - : 3 to 5 o

*!

 +° +l Medium -5 to 1 -1

«

 +o +

~ 1to3 0 A3 +2 +3 3to5 +1

S o o H'gh -

5to° -1

TM , , 0 to 1 0

S? 1 1 1to5 +1

'LL ~2 "7 Rangeland Low -5 to 4 -1

DO c "1 4 to 5 0

TM * -° Medium -5 to 1 -1

N1 +1 +3

 1 to 3 0

TM 1 1 3<°5 +1

N3 -4 -3 High -5 to 0 -1

MJ "1 H 0101 0

IS 2 1 UH5 1!_

N7 -3 -2

N8 -4 -3

844 Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Table 7.4 — Rule set for determining directional change in integrity (rdidx) due to changes in area of low

road density or high road density within each subbasin, and current composite integrity rating.

Change in low road Change in high road Current Composite

densities densities Integrity Rating Rdidx

any decrease all all -1

0 to 5% increase any increase all -1

0 to 10% decrease all 0

> 10% decrease low 0

medium or high +1

> 5% increase any increase low or medium 0

high -1

0 to 10% decrease low or medium +1

high 0

> 10% decrease all +1

The third index of expected change (sgidx), was ite integrity (fig. 7.2). Alternatives 1 and 5 are

based on the level of riparian protection that dominated by declining trends (approximately

would be provided on FS- and BLM-administered 95% and 70% respectively), while Alternatives 2,

lands under each alternative. A simple rule set 3, and 7 have 20 percent, 10 percent, and 5 perassigned values to each subbasin based on the cent area with declining trends respectively,

alternative and whether the subbasin fell within Alternatives 6 and 4 show all areas as either

one of several categories (table 7.5). This assign- stable or improving trends. Over 70 percent of

ment was consistent with the evaluation of alter- the area in Alternatives 4 and 6 show improving

natives brought forward by the aquatic and terres- trends, while Alternative 1 has less than 3 percent

trial teams (see the aquatic and terrestrial sections of the area in improving trends. Alternatives 5

of this report for a detailed description). and 2 have 20 percent of the area in improving

For each alternative and subbasin, we calculated a

final index of change based simply on the sum of In the discussions that follow, integrity trends are

vegidx, rdidx, and sgidx. This composite index of described in terms of the proxies used in this

change assumed values ranging from -3 to +3, analysis. The proxies represent many elements and

where +3 indicates a strong improving trend in a more complete discussion would not focus on

ecological integrity, 0 indicates no change in eco- the proxies but the elements they represent. Refer

logical integrity, and -3 indicates a strong declin- to table 7.1 for a partial listing of the elements

ing trend in ecological integrity. Values of -2 and - represented by the proxies.

1 indicate declining trends in integrity, but not as . . r . r

strong as a value of-3. The same logic applies to

 The molst f°rest veg«anon types of western

upward trends in integrity associated with +2 and

 Mon

,

tana and northeTM Idah° ^TM declining

, , trends in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5 with mostly

stable trends in Alternatives 4 and 6. The declinResults and Discussion — Each alternative ing trends generally reflect that favorable contriresults in a different projection in composite eco- butions to integrity trends from riparian strategies

logical integrity trends (maps 7.2 through 7.8) are offset by forest and rangeland vegetation

(see appendix 7 A for a listing of all values by sub- trends and/or road density trends. Attaining stable

basin). Summing across all the FS- and BLM- trends in this area would result from favorable

administered lands within the basin shows that riparian strategies and intensive management of

the alternatives provide varying trends in compos- road networks (decreasing road densities). The

Integrity, Resiliency, Risk 84S
forest and rangeland vegetation management noxious weeds are contained or reduced, and the

strategies applied within the alternatives were gen- vegetation structure and cover type changes that

erally not effective in restoring composition and result from grazing, disturbances, changes in fire

structure to that which would be consistent with regime, and woody species encroachment. Where

the long-term disturbance processes and the capa- aggressive management of noxious weeds, grazing

bilities of the biophysical environment. More management, watershed restoration, and road

extensive treatments, focused specifically on the density reductions are planned, the trends are stamid-seral vegetation types and prioritized within ble or improving,

the area, might result in favorable trends for the „. , .... _ .

vegetation component of integrity. The specific

 The larf reserves

 °f ^TMTM 7 hf

e

 *TM

interactions that would occur with changing vege- where the integrity trend is projected to be declmtation treatments would need to be explored if

 m& Tms declmmg "end reflects

 *? «

m

efrarne

such a proposal were to come forward. Where this (100-year projection), current conditions, and

area shows improving trends in ecological integri- projected approach to fire management and road

ty in Alternative 7 is related to decreasing road closures Fire suppression during the last several

densities and favorable riparian strategies as decades has been effective in removing fire from

opposed to vegetation conditions consistent with ^ o{ thf existing wilderness areas of central

long-term disturbance processes and the capabili-

 Idaho' resultTM% m

L ^ bullduP f ^5 m much

 _,

ties of the biophysical environment.

 of

 [hls area This buildup of fuels ,s not projected

to burn within the next decade, but is likely to

The dry forest vegetation types of eastern Oregon burn with large fires in the next 100 years. For

show declining trends in Alternatives 1 and 5, sta- those areas showing declining trends in the 100-

ble trends in 2, 3, and 4, and improving trends in year timeframe in the reserves, the trend in the

6 and portions of 7. The rationale for these trends next decade might be stable and in a 400 year

is similar to those for the moist forest types. In timeframe might be favorable,

the action alternatives the improving-trend contri- .

bution from riparian strategies is generally offset

 The ratlonalf for the

 "Panan strategy

 con<"buby declining trends from road density changes.

 non to

 "ends ls related l° the management

The forest and rangeland vegetation trends under

 aPProach to

,

exi"m

§

 roads w"hm

 **

 re seTMs

'

the prescriptions of the alternatives did not result Alternative 7 calls for the roads to be closed, but

in improving trends in integrity. The forest and

 not

 necessarily obliterated or put to bed. Most,

rangeland vegetation management strategies

 but not

 f'

 of the

 «^«m potential contnbuapplied within the alternatives generally were not

 r°rs

 *°

 adverse

 ecological conditions from these

effective in restoring composition and structure to flosed roads would bf ^dressed. This would likethat consistent with the long-term disturbance ^ conmbute

 » problems during the 100 year

processes and the capabilities of the biophysical timeframe as culverts become plugged and washenvironment. More extensive treatments, focused °uts oc

L

c

,

ur' and erosion on road surfaces

 >ncreases.

specifically on the mid-serai vegetation types, and Favorable trends in integrity for riparian strategies

prioritized within the area might result in favor-

 were not

 Rejected within reserves. Similar conable trends for the vegetation component of

 cerns are

 Pr°Jected for rangeland areas within

integrity. Alternative 6 shows improving trends for

 Tfserve

a

s related

f

to

 .7°X1OUS ^ expansion and

this area that reflect favorable riparian strategies

 the influence of wildfire in the absence of substanand more aggressive road density management

 tlal

 «^oration. Fire suppression was projected to

than the other alternatives.

 occur

j

 *cc°

tdmS to natlfnal fire

 P0'

1

^'

 b"r

 Pr°'

jected wildnre size was larger than could be errecIn the action alternatives (3 through 7) declining lively controlled,

trends on rangelands generally reflect the degree

$4B Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Table 7.5 - Rule set for assigning expected change (sgidx) in composite integrity due to implementation 

of riparian standards and guidelines under each of the proposed alternatives. 

Alternative Conditions Sgidx 

Protected under FEMAT +1 

Greater than 50% in wilderness 0 

Otherwise -1 

2, 3, 4, 6, 7 Protected under FEMAT, PACFISH, or INFISH +1 

Greater than 50% in wilderness 0 

Livestock or timber emphasis areas -1 

Otherwise, and protected under FEMAT, PACFISH, or INFISH +1 

Greater than 50% in wilderness 0 

Figure 7.2 - Trends in composite ecological integrity projected for each alternative (-3 is strongly decreasing; 0 is stable; +3 is 

strongly increasing) on FS- and BLM-administered lands. Note that the alternatives are not in numerical order. 

Integrity, Resiliency, Risk 

Composite Ecological Integrity Trends 
Map 7.2 - Long-term trends in ecological integrity for FS- and BLM-administered land: Alternative 1. 

Integrity, Resiliency, Risk 
Map 7.3 - Long-term trends in ecological integrity for FS- and BLM-administered land: Alternative 2. 

Integrity, Resiliency, Risk ~