Previous
This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Mis-scans identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
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
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.
•&38
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
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 resiliencyrating
Medium socioeconomic resiliencyrating
High socioeconomicresiliencyrating
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
•..~.~..~`~.~'~.~....~...~....~....~..~........`.`....~...~'.~..~'...~....~.~..~..--.....~...~...~.........~....`..v.
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
839
840
841
841
845
855
855
855
857
857
857
860
860
860
860
875
876
•838
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
The Draft Environmental Impact Statements
describe two primary needs underlying the proposed action: (1) restore and maintain long-term
ecosystem health and integrity; and (2) support
the economic and/or social needs of people, cultures, and communities, and provide sustainable
and predictable levels of products and services.
The needs are linked with specific goals selected
by the EIS teams. The goals they identified
include: 1) maintain, and where necessary restore,
the long-term health and integrity of forest,
rangeland, aquatic, and riparian ecosystems; 2)
provide sustainable and predictable levels of products and services within the capability of the
ecosystem; 3) provide opportunities for diverse
cultural, recreational, and aesthetic experiences
within the capability of the ecosystem; 4) contribute to the recovery and delisting of threatened
and endangered species; and, 5) manage natural
resources consistent with treaty and trust responsibilities to American Indian tribes (Preliminary
Draft EISs 1996'). These needs and goals imply
the desire to achieve and maintain ecological
integrity at a high level. These needs and goals
were examined by addressing ecological integrity,
socioeconomic resiliency, and the risks associated
with human ecological interactions.
A composite estimate of current ecological integrity was developed across the entire Basin for all FSand BLM-administered land and the trend in ecological integrity was estimated for each alternative
over the next 100 years. This required identification of the current condition of specific ecological
integrity components (aquatic/riparian, forest,
rangeland, and hydrologic) (Quigley and others
1996). Current socioeconomic resiliency was estimated for social and economic systems, and its
variation across the Basin was described (Quigley
and others 1996). The trends in risk associated
with human ecological interaction represents the
change expected to result from people interacting
with the wildland system, and the change expect-
ed as disturbances within the wildland system
come in conflict with human assets. These trends
are projected for each alternative. They provide
useful estimates to show how FS and BLM management as proposed in the alternatives might
influence ecological integrity and socioeconomic
resiliency. These estimates are not intended to be
measures of final outcomes, but are an indication
of the direction of movement brought on by the
implementation of each EIS alternative. Each
alternative was evaluated to project how the
actions of the FS and BLM would contribute to
integrity, socioeconomic resiliency, and human
ecological interactions,
ECOlOffJCfll IntG^TitV
It is recognized that there are no direct measures of
ecological integrity and that assessing integrity
requires comparisons against a set of ecological
conditions and against a set of clearly stated management goals and objectives (Woodley, Kay, and
Francis 1993). This process is not strictly a scientific endeavor (Wickium and Davies 1995), because
to
provide meaning, ecological integrity must be
grounded to desired outcomes. The overriding ecological outcome expected, as articulated in the EIS
Alternatives for FS- and BLM-administered lands
within the Basiri) is to maintain or enhance ecosystem or ecological integrity,
High levels of ecological integrity are dependent
the maintenance of evolutionary and ecological
processes, such as types and frequencies of disturbances, water cycling, energy flow, and nutrient
cycling; ecosystem functions and processes that
operate on multiple ecological domains and evolutionary time frames; and, viable populations of
native and desired non-native species (see Haynes
and others 1996 for a broader discussion). These
processes and functions have transitioned from historic ranges of conditions to their present status,
The basic components of ecological integrity
on:
'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
a hydrologic system interconnecting the landscape
into a whole. High integrity for these components
can be defined:
...
.
.
.i
.
x
A forest and range (terrestrial environment)
system that exhibits high integrity is defined
here as a mosaic of plant and animal communities, consisting of well connected, high-quality
undoubtedly will be refined as additional infbrmation becomes available. Given more time and
information, integrity indices might have included
direct consideration for elements such as recovery
cycles, synereistic interactions between environ^
memaj com*onems ^ biophysical linkageS)
fcedback
^ ^j
mechanisms
m
on differem
ora] scales within the
^
*X°lTrlB^e±itf±±d
Composite Ecological Integrity
desired non-native species, the appropriate
expression of potential life histories and taxonomic lineages, and the taxonomic and genetic
diversity necessary for long-term persistence
and adaptation in a variable environment.
Subbasins (approximately 325,000 to 400,000
hectares in size) were rated as having high, mediuni) or low ecological integrity for: forest lands,
rangelands, forest and rangeland hydrologic systemS) and aquatic systems (Sedell and others
An aquatic system that exhibits high integrity is
defined here as a mosaic of well connected,
high-quality water and habitats that support a
diverse assemblage of native and desired nonnative species, the fall expression of appropriate
potential life histories and dispersal mechanisms, and the genetic diversity necessary for
long-term persistence and adaptation in a variable environment.
1996
Landscapes jointly encompass the terrestrial
and aquatic environments. A hydrologic network operates within basins on the landscape.
A hydrologic system that exhibits high integrity
is defined here as a network of streams, along
with their unique ground water ecosystems,
within the broader landscape where the upland,
floodplain, and riparian areas have resilient vegetation, where the capture, storage, and release
of water limits the effects of sedimentation and
erosion, and where infiltration, percolation,
and nutrient cycling provide for diverse and
productive aquatic and terrestrial
environments.
These estimates of integrity and resiliency are presented as initial estimates based on our understanding of the information available. Absolute
levels of integrity or resiliency within the Basin are
not presumed to have been measured nor revealed.
Rather, these represent thefirstattempt at estimating relative integrity at this spatial level and
S4H
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
>- ^ °f *f 164 sak^ ^
*? J^
was rated, and ratings considered all ownerships
wlthin
^ Basm' T^ actual r*anf combined.
bas< don
^™
;
descriptive data layers, empirical
Process models, trend analysis, and expert judgment The basic data sets on which the ratings
we
f ******* aggregations of data from broadscale ma
? &emes> ^watershed information or
model ro e
P J ««>ns (Quigley and others 1996).
These basic la ers
y Provided ^f backdr°P for «f'
"^/o^ f C°mP°SIte <jc°loflcal. mteSnty forL
fS- and BLM-administered lands within each subbasm The
'L Component integrity layers were used
wlth
^ in^tion brought forward through the
assessment (Quigley and Arbelb,de in press), the
evaluation of alternatives which included a discus»°n of k^)C T8"*7' T™5^ ^T^
j(Marcot 1996) and our understanding of conditlons
^dtrends'. to estimate the current composite
ecological integrity for each subbasm (map 7.1).
Composite integrity was estimated by comparing
** «™P°n«K ""*g"«y ratings and knowledge of
^
?n-the^ound conditions with how each
subbasm met the definitions described previously
for systems with high ecological integrity.
.
.
. . . . . .
.
The com
P°s'te ecological integrity ratings are relatlve measures wlthin
,
^ Basm- Hl& comP^f
ecological integrity indicates that, relative to the
subba
^
*f ^in^e ^essment area, a subbasm meets the defini ons of
»
^ integrity more
than those subbasins rated as medium or low. At
present 26 percent of the FS- and BLM-administered lands within the Basin are rated as high
integrity, 29 percent are rated as medium, and 45
percent are in low ecological integrity (fig. 7.la
and 7.1b). Of the total area within the Basin that
is rated as having high composite ecological
integrity, 84 percent is on lands administered by
the FS and BLM. A rating of low does not necessarily translate to "bad" or "poor". For instance,
many of the subbasins rated as having low ecological integrity include large areas of farmland.
These areas are important and may be functioning
just as society would have them function.
Trends ill Composite Ecological
Integrity
®
Trends in ecological integrity for FS- and BLMadministered lands are dependent on current
integrity, future management actions (such as timber harvest, prescribed fire, grazing, and restoration), and unplanned disturbance events (such as
fire, flood, insects, disease, and climate variation).
Basic rule sets were developed to predict trends in
integrity for FS- and BLM-administered lands.
No attempt was made to project the component
integrity elements directly. The projections available through the evaluation of alternatives were
examined to determine which ones might provide
the most universal predictors of change in integrity. Three primary indicators were chosen to use;
each is equally weighted in its contribution to
composite ecological integrity trends: forest and
rangeland vegetation (as integrated indicators of
such elements as disturbance, succession, management activities, exotics, and habitat); riparian
management (as indicators of such elements as
aquatic environment, riparian communities, connectivity of riparian and aquatic ecosystems across
the FS and BLM landscapes, fragmentation, and
habitats); and, road density changes (as indicators
of such elements as change in erosion, sediment,
terrestrial habitat fragmentation, and exotic introductions). A broad array of elements contribute to
integrity trends and are represented by these three
proxies (table 7 1)
Methods — To identify expected trends in cornposite ecological integrity under each of the alternatives, a set of indices was generated based on
expected changes in vegetation structure and cornposition, changes in road densities, and riparian
management for each alternative. An intermediate
score for vegetation was generated based on potential vegetation type (forest or range) and the prescription models (see the Landscape Ecology section of this report for detail concerning prescriptions) applied within each alternative (table 7.2).
Intermediate scores were generated for each 1square-kilometer pixel within the Basin using the
rule set in table 7.2, and the potential vegetation
maps and prescription allocations developed by the
landscape staff. Mean scores were calculated for
each subbasin based on an aggregation of FS- or
BLM- administered land only. The mean intermediate scores were used in combination with the
current rating of composite integrity to derive an
index of expected change (table 7.3). This index
(vegidx) assumed values of-1, 0, or +1, where the
sign of the index refers to expected direction of
change in ecological integrity (that is, -1 indicates
that ecological integrity as reflected in vegetation is
expected to decline; +1 suggests improvement, and
0 suggests no change). No attempt was made to
quantify the magnitude of the expected change,
A similar index
<r^ was constructed based on
* Projections of future road densities (resulting
from
*e application of rule sets associating mtenSI
{
V ° , *""« management activity and current
road
densities) and our interpretation of the
potential ecological ramifications of changing road
densities. Two measures for each subbasin were
calculated. One was the combined change in the
proportion of FS- and BLM-administered ands
wlthm each
subbasin with less than 0.1 miles of
road
Per s<luare mlle &* Pro)ected b7 the sPatlal
anal sls team Tms was referred to
y
)'
« the change
m low
™ad density. The second measure change
m hl h road denslt
8
y> measured an equivalent
chan e in the FS and
g
'
BLM-administered area
with
Sreater than 17 road miles PefS1uare mik
These
measures of change m road density were
used on
^ S ™lt" tne current composite integrity
rating to assign rdidx values (table 7.4).
c
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
841
Map 7.1 - Composite ecological integrity ratings synthesized the forest, rangeland, forest and rangeland hydrologic, and aquatic component
integrity ratings.
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
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 calculation of directional changes in integrity for each
combination of prescription model and major
vegetation group (forest or rangeland). Scores
range from -5 (traditional production emphasis),
to 0 (conserve existing structure and composition), to +5 (maximum restoration consistent with
i - i - i
i \
biophysical template).
:
;——
Forest
Rangeland
Prescription Model
score
score
r;
+
:
+
+
*!
«
+
+2
+3
S
™
S?
'LL
DO
™
o
,
1
~2
c
*
o
,
1
"7
"1
-°
o
+1
™
N3
1
-4
MJ
"1
IS
2
N7
N8
Potential
Vegetation
—
Forest
l
A3
N1
844
°
Table 7.3 - Rule set for determining the expected
directional change (vegidx) in ecological integrity,
based on current composite integrity rating and
mean intermediate vegetation score for each
subbasin.
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
1
-3
H
1
-2
-3
Mean
Intermediate
Score
Low
-5 to 3
Vegidx
—
-1
Medium
-5 to 1
-1
3 to5
1to3
~
+3
-3
-4
Current
Composite
Integrity
Rating
0
3to5
+1
H
'gh
-5to°
0 to 1
-1
0
Low
-5 to 4
4 to 5
-5 to 1
1 to 3
3
<°5
-5 to 0
1to5
Rangeland
o
Medium
High
0101
UH5
+1
-1
0
-1
0
+1
-1
0
1!_
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
densities
Change in high road
densities
Current Composite
Integrity Rating
any decrease
0 to 5% increase
all
any increase
0 to 10% decrease
> 10% decrease
> 5% increase
any increase
all
all
all
low
medium or high
low or medium
high
low or medium
high
all
0 to 10% decrease
> 10% decrease
The third index of expected change (sgidx), was
based on the level of riparian protection that
would be provided on FS- and BLM-administered
lands under each alternative. A simple rule set
assigned values to each subbasin based on the
alternative and whether the subbasin fell within
one of several categories (table 7.5). This assignment was consistent with the evaluation of alternatives brought forward by the aquatic and terrestrial teams (see the aquatic and terrestrial sections
of this report for a detailed description).
For each alternative and subbasin, we calculated a
final index of change based simply on the sum of
vegidx, rdidx, and sgidx. This composite index of
change assumed values ranging from -3 to +3,
where +3 indicates a strong improving trend in
ecological integrity, 0 indicates no change in ecological integrity, and -3 indicates a strong declining trend in ecological integrity. Values of -2 and 1 indicate declining trends in integrity, but not as
strong as a value of-3. The same logic applies to
upward trends in integrity associated with +2 and
, ,
Results and Discussion — Each alternative
results in a different projection in composite ecological integrity trends (maps 7.2 through 7.8)
(see appendix 7A for a listing of all values by subbasin). Summing across all the FS- and BLMadministered lands within the basin shows that
the alternatives provide varying trends in compos-
Rdidx
-1
-1
0
0
+1
0
-1
+1
0
+1
ite integrity (fig. 7.2). Alternatives 1 and 5 are
dominated by declining trends (approximately
95% and 70% respectively), while Alternatives 2,
3, and 7 have 20 percent, 10 percent, and 5 percent area with declining trends respectively,
Alternatives 6 and 4 show all areas as either
stable or improving trends. Over 70 percent of
the area in Alternatives 4 and 6 show improving
trends, while Alternative 1 has less than 3 percent
of the area in improving trends. Alternatives 5
and 2 have 20 percent of the area in improving
In the discussions that follow, integrity trends are
described in terms of the proxies used in this
analysis. The proxies represent many elements and
a more complete discussion would not focus on
the proxies but the elements they represent. Refer
to table 7.1 for a partial listing of the elements
represented by the proxies.
.
. r
.
r
Th
e molst f°rest veg«anon types of western
Mon tana and northe
,
™ Idah° ^™ declining
trends in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5 with mostly
stable trends in Alternatives 4 and 6. The declining trends generally reflect that favorable contributions to integrity trends from riparian strategies
are offset by forest and rangeland vegetation
trends and/or road density trends. Attaining stable
trends in this area would result from favorable
riparian strategies and intensive management of
road networks (decreasing road densities). The
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
84S
forest and rangeland vegetation management
strategies applied within the alternatives were generally not effective in restoring composition and
structure to that which would be consistent with
the long-term disturbance processes and the capabilities of the biophysical environment. More
extensive treatments, focused specifically on the
mid-seral vegetation types and prioritized within
the area, might result in favorable trends for the
vegetation component of integrity. The specific
interactions that would occur with changing vegetation treatments would need to be explored if
such a proposal were to come forward. Where this
area shows improving trends in ecological integrity in Alternative 7 is related to decreasing road
densities and favorable riparian strategies as
opposed to vegetation conditions consistent with
long-term disturbance processes and the capabilities of the biophysical environment.
The dry forest vegetation types of eastern Oregon
show declining trends in Alternatives 1 and 5, stable trends in 2, 3, and 4, and improving trends in
6 and portions of 7. The rationale for these trends
is similar to those for the moist forest types. In
the action alternatives the improving-trend contribution from riparian strategies is generally offset
by declining trends from road density changes.
The forest and rangeland vegetation trends under
the prescriptions of the alternatives did not result
in improving trends in integrity. The forest and
rangeland vegetation management strategies
applied within the alternatives generally were not
effective in restoring composition and structure to
that consistent with the long-term disturbance
processes and the capabilities of the biophysical
environment. More extensive treatments, focused
specifically on the mid-serai vegetation types, and
prioritized within the area might result in favorable trends for the vegetation component of
integrity. Alternative 6 shows improving trends for
this area that reflect favorable riparian strategies
and more aggressive road density management
than the other alternatives.
In the action alternatives (3 through 7) declining
trends on rangelands generally reflect the degree
$4B
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
noxious weeds are contained or reduced, and the
vegetation structure and cover type changes that
result from grazing, disturbances, changes in fire
regime, and woody species encroachment. Where
aggressive management of noxious weeds, grazing
management, watershed restoration, and road
density reductions are planned, the trends are stable or improving,
„. ,
....
_.
The lar reserves f
f
° ^™™ 7 hfe *™
where the integrity trend is projected to be declmm
& Tms declmmg "end reflects *? «mefrarne
(100-year projection), current conditions, and
projected approach to fire management and road
closures Fire suppression during the last several
decades has been effective in removing fire from
o{ th
^
f existing wilderness areas of central
Idaho result
'
™% mL ^ bullduP f ^5 m much _,
of
[hls area This buildup of fuels ,s not projected
to burn within the next decade, but is likely to
burn with large fires in the next 100 years. For
those areas showing declining trends in the 100year timeframe in the reserves, the trend in the
next decade might be stable and in a 400 year
timeframe might be favorable,
.
The ratlonal for the
f
"Panan strategy con<"bunon to
ends ls related l
"
° the management
a
PProach to,exi"m§ roads w"hm ** re se™s'
Alternative 7 calls for the roads to be closed, but
not
necessarily obliterated or put to bed. Most,
but not
f' of the «^«m potential contnbur rs
adverse
° *°
ecological conditions from these
flosed roads would bf ^dressed. This would like^ conmbute » problems during the 100 year
timeframe as culverts become plugged and wash°uts ocLc,ur' and erosion on road surfaces >ncreases.
Favorable trends in integrity for riparian strategies
were not
Rejected within reserves. Similar concerns are
Pr°Jected for rangeland areas within
T serve s related to
f a
.7°X1OUS ^
expansion and
f
the influe
nce of wildfire in the absence of substantlal
«^oration. Fire suppression was projected to
occur
cc tdm to natl nal fire
S
f
P0'1^' b"r Pr°'
j* °
jected wildnre size was larger than could be erreclively controlled,
Table 7.5 - Rule set for assigning expected change (sgidx) in composite integrity due to implementation
of riparian standards and guidelines under each o f the proposed alternatives.
Alternative
2, 3, 4, 6, 7
Conditions
Sgidx
Protected under FEMAT
Greater than 50% in wilderness
Otherwise
Protected under FEMAT, PACFISH, or INFISH
Greater than 50% in wilderness
Livestock or timber emphasis areas
Otherwise, and protected under FEMAT, PACFISH, or INFISH
Greater than 50% in wilderness
+1
0
-1
+1
0
-1
+1
0
Composite Ecological Integrity Trends
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
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.
Continue
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
~