This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Mis-scans identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Map 7.4 - Long-term trends in ecological integrity for FS- and BLM-administered land: Alternative 3.
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Map 7.5 - Long-term trends in ecological integrity for FS- and BLM-administered land: Alternative 4.
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Map 7.6 - Long-term trends in ecological integrity for FS- and BLM-administered land: Alternative 5.
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Map 7.7 - Long-term trends in ecological integrity for FS- and BLM-administered land: Alternative 6.
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Map 7.8 - Long-term trends in ecological integrity for FS- and BLM-administered land: Alternative 7.
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Alternatives 4 and 6 are projected to be successful
in stabilizing or reversing negative trends in ecological integrity for FS- and BLM-administered lands.
Widi more detailed and aggressive management it
may be possible to project improving trends for
some of the lands now predicted to be stable in
these alternatives. The outcomes are inter-linked
and would require additional analysis to determine
the net effects. The basic strategies contained in
Alternatives 4 and 6 include additional prioritization of management actions directed specifically at
restoring ecological systems, managing vegetation
within the capabilities of the biophysical environment, and attempting to achieve vegetation structure and composition consistent with the long-term
disturbance processes operating on the landscape.
SOCial and ECOnOmiC
Both social and economic resiliency measure the
adaptability of human systems. Social resiliency
was measured using four composite factors: civic
infrastructure (leadership, preparedness for
change); economic diversity; social/cultural diversity (population size, mix of skills); and amenity
infrastructure (attractiveness of the community
and surrounding area). Economic resiliency was
measured by the diversity among employment sectors (using the Shannon-Weaver index). People in
highly resilient counties are assumed to have ready
access to a range of employment opportunities if
specific firms or business sectors experience downturns. Much like the biophysical components of
the ecosystem, social and economic resiliency are
affected by the size of the area measured (commumty, county, or trade regions) but reflect human
ideas about the landscape rather than hydrologic
subbasins. In general, larger units display greater
economic diversity (and by extension, economic
and social resiliency) than smaller areas. Further,
since resiliency attempts to measure a capacity for
human response, classifications of either social or
economic resiliency serve as relative estimates of
adaptability, rather than absolute descriptors.
When we look at the Basin from the socioeconomic perspective our basic frame of reference is
how humans organize themselves both in a community sense and how they relate to their biophysical environment. One overarching feature of
this perspective is the speed at which human cornmunities, interests, values, and economies change,
Given this feature, one useful relatively permanent
administrative feature is the county. We observe
that counties and available county data can be
used to describe broad trends in socioeconomic
resiliency. Another powerful argument for considering counties is their role as political entities in a
political system that simultaneously relates federal/state/local interactions,
Current SocioeCOnomiC Resiliency
Socioeconomic resiliency draws from measures of
social and economic resiliency separately (Quigley
and others 1996). These measures can be combined into a single measure and used to assess the
alternatives. This composite rating combines
*"* factors ** «« included in discussions of
**d economic resiliency: population density
(defined as population per square mile), economic
resiliency (defined as diversity of economic sectors),
^ llfestyle diversity (see Haynes and Home, in
Press' for a more detalled discussion). We assigned
"* socioeconomic resiliency ratings based on the
sum of the total ratin s for each of
^ *«* factors
where each was
wogMed equally. The ratings were
developed for each of the 100 counties in the Basin
(maP7'9)' Counties are one of the few permanent
geographic features of human systems,
L<,W socioeconomic resiliency rating — This
includes the Basin counties with low population
density (< 11 people per square mile)) low or medi.
um economic resiliency and low or medium lifestyie diversity. There are 54 counties in the Basin
in this categorv. These counties account for 68 percent of tne area but only 18 percent of the population. ^ shown in map 7.9, many of the counties
traditionally thought of as agricultural are in this
category. There are 14 counties that have medium
economic resiliency, but most of them are among
the least densely populated counties in the Basin
(fewer ^ 6 Pe°Ple Per s<luare mile) *nd most
' ^d BLM-administered lands.
contam FS
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Map 7.9 - Socioeconomic resiliency ratings are the sum of ratings for economic resiliency, population density, and lifestyle diversity.
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Medium socioeconomic resiliency rating —
This includes the 20 Basin counties with mostly
medium economic resiliency ratings and generally
medium or high lifestyle diversity or population
• • ratines.
• i j Klickitat
vi- 11- coundensity
i •i i i
-Ij i- i
ty, which has low economic resiliency and high
,-r i j.
L- L L
hrestyle diversity; and Cassia county, which has
i • density
• L.
W population
but medium
j IT r j• u i
L u i
and hrestyle diversity. Baker county has the lowest
i • density
• ratings,
ubut a medium
j • level
i i orr
n •
jeconomic resiliency rerlecting a diverse economy,
i i i . L II
i ja •
and the highest
level or hrestyle diversity rerlecting
, 0 , . , . r.
greater adaptability or its social systems.
locate in these areas. That is, some people choose
these counties specifically because they are sparsely
, ,. . .
.we caution against
/ that/ unu to• high
i • ruttngs are equivalent
to bad to mod ran ngs; the intent
. * . 7 .. .
, .,.*
i i - i -r
is to describe the adaptability or vulnerability or
i i i
not to
rate them
as. °good
. or ,_„„..
Generally, most orr the people in the Basin (82%)
.. .m ' . .
,•, • ,
are medium or.. high
° in
. the
degree orr adaptability,
as measured by socioecor
° .
, r -, -.\ »*
r ii
nomic resiliency (rig.
7.3). Most or the land area
,,-„„/ x • i r> • i
• • i i
(68%) in the Basin, however, is in the low cate,
gory ror socioeconomic resiliency.
High socioeconomic resiliency rating —
This rating includes the 26 Basin counties that are
more densely populated (greater than 11 people
per square mile), and have the highest level of
economic resiliency. Counties with high social/
economic resiliency typically have high population
densities, medium economic resiliency, and medium to high lifestyle diversity values. The exceptions to these are Klamath county, which has low
population density but high economic resiliency
and high lifestyle diversity and Silver Bow county
that has low economic resiliency, but high population density and high lifestyle diversity. High
lifestyle diversities in these two counties suggest
there. are
. higher
°. infrastructure
. . values than the
l o wr population
densities would suggest.
The only component of socioeconomic resiliency
in which we have ability to project trends is population density. But we can use population density
as a proxy for socioeconomic resiliency to make
some broad assessments about future resiliency
trends. We can do this because economic resiliency,
lifestyle diversity and population density vary
directly with each other. That is, these factors seem
to be collinear which suggests that any one of these
three factors can be used as a proxy for the others.
A or
n n1994,
n / uthe population
i •
r the
u Basin
n -was21
million. Population projections suggest that the
This approach recognizes the 44 (of 100) counties
with very low (less than 6 people per square mile)
population densities, sometimes called "frontier
counties." Typically these counties have low
socioeconomic resiliency, and include many of the
60 Basin counties labeled "federal" in the sense
that more than 33 percent of their area is in federal ownership. The interest in identifying these socalled "frontier counties" is a concern that they
may lack sufficient population to sustain existing
services or to develop necessary social services. A
related concern is whether they are able to maintain the existing infrastructure both in the physical sense and in the social sense, especially in the
sense of community. One example is counties that
are too sparse to sustain a medical clinic. This relative isolation also stimulates some people to
Basins 100 counties may have 6.0 million people
by 2040 (McCool and Haynes 1996). This is a
growth rate higher than the population growth
rate for the United States as a whole. In these projections, the population density ratings for 61
counties remained unchanged. The remaining 39
counties shifted to a higher category of population
density. Figure 7.4 illustrates these trends in terms
of both the distribution of population density categories by population and by area. By 2040, nearly 80 percent of the population (up from 60 percent currently) is projected to live in relatively
urbanized environments. The proportion of the
people living in the most rural parts of the Basin
falls by 50 percent. The area in the lowest population density category changes from 68 percent to
45 percent of the Basin.
Trends in Socioeconomic
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk