Previous
This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Mis-scans identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Figure 7.3 — Percentage of the Basin by ecological integrity and socioeconomic resiliency ratings.
Figure 7.4 — Distribution of population density categories by area and population of 1994 and 2040.
Because of the projected increase in Basin population, there are likely to be more people in the
high density counties. This is particularly true in
"recreation" counties that are projected to attract a
disproportionate numbers of in-migrants
(McCool and Haynes 1996). In terms of socioeconomic resiliency, this means a continued shift
toward higher socioeconomic resiliency throughout the Basin, with the exception of the "frontier"
counties that are not recreation counties or that
have low economic resiliency. None of the 100
counties are projected to lose population between
1995 and 2040; less than 10 percent of the counties are projected to have only minor increases. As
other areas become more densely populated, these
few counties (less than 10%) are likely to become
increasingly isolated and to have difficulty attract• c
•
r\ the
u other
u
ing infrastructure
andj investments.
On
iji
pi i
i
hand, they are likely to be more apparent as
« c
»r
i
i•
i- j
refuges for people seeking solitude.
Predicting trends for socioeconomic resiliency is
difficult because of the inherit uncertainty in
social systems (because of both the speed at which
they change and the uncertainties inherit in the
underlying assumptions). Ten year trends in county level economic resiliency that might be attributed to the adoption of alternative management
strategies on FS- and BLM-administered lands are
related to projected population growth, reliance
on FS and/or BLM forage, reliance on harvest of
FS and/or BLM timber, recreation opportunities,
and initial levels of economic resiliency (see the
Economic chapter of this report for further discussion). These trends show 17 counties that
might experience possible change in economic
resiliency within the Basin. Weighting these counties by the proportion of Basin population they
represent shows that only a fraction of the population might experience a downturn in economic
resiliency. This is not to downplay the significance
of the potential impacts, but rather to place them
in perspective. Comparing this small percentage
of the population against the relatively large percentage of the Basin area that might experience a
downturn in ecological integrity can be deceptive.
Ecological integrity trends are judged with respect
to forest, rangeland, and watershed conditions
and management, with little interaction with
prospective human impacts on either management
or changes in the mix of ecosystem goods, services, and conditions. Economic resiliency trends
speak to the entire economic system within the
Basin. As such, they include goods, services, and
conditions from forest and range ecosystems as
well as the other parts of the Basin. They also only
speak to the conditions in the first decade of the
planning period (where the trends in ecological
integrity speak to changes expected in the next
100 years),
. .
. .
.
T
[n the lon g™' population changes are a proxy
J>r expected economic changes m the Basin (see
Ha nes and Horne ln
y
' Prfs'. fof Potions of
7 in the Basin tor some or the
economic
activity
.
.
ma or resources). Projected population shirts over
. >
<- n
inii
the next 50 years suggest the Basin would come to
. r L w/ • u •
u L
look like much or the West in that it would become primarily urban. There would still be 45
percent of the Basin's area that would be in the
lowest population class that we call "frontier"
counties. Those counties would likely continue to
generate concerns about their ability to provide
social services without help from State and Federal
governments. It is expected that concerns about
social resiliency would be most pronounced in
these counties. There is little that FS and BLM
managers can do about this. Political factors are
involved in each particular location in addition to
the socioeconomic trends. Some people choose
these counties specifically because they are sparsely
settled.
_ , . . . ,
.
. ,. . .
Jhere is often the concern about the link between
^uman Conditions and well-being) and the condltlon
of the underlying ecosystems. Comparing
socioeconomic resiliency by area may cause some
to c on dude th
, .
f PeoPJe m the Basm h^e impovenshed
themselves and that ecosystem and human
community sustamability is imperiled. Such a
vlew a t h e Basi n levd le ds C erroneous conclu
<
.
f
°
sions_ First the forest and rangeland ecosystems do
not themselves provide the economic foundations
of the Basin. Second, many of the ecosystems
have been modified by human action to increase
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
659
their production of native (for example, timber
and grass) or exotic (for example wheat or cattle)
crops o r animals.
DSeir AAttAe0mAH*> UHBMAH
msK Assessment, riuman
Agricultural lands were rated with lower risks than
forest and rangeland areas (table 7.6).
.
,-,
- J - U L C C
j
lo estimate the risk associated with the rh>- and
BLM-administered portion of the wildland areas,
ECOlOglCal Interactions
,r
.,
i • i•
•
w,
We assessed future risk to ecological integrity in
,.
, ,
1 - 1 1
j
relation to people (growth in rural-urban areas and
\
i .i
i
i i •
•
use rpatterns) and risk to people and their assets in
. .
.... ,
rr\_ j i •
relation to wildland areas. 1 he underlying assumption is that risk to ecological integrity is generally
higher in proximity to densely populated areas,
and risk to people and their assets is generally
higher in close proximity to wildland areas rather
than to agricultural or urban areas. Natural or
human-induced events that occur within wildland
areas may prove nsky to people, homes, and other
assets people value Those risks are related to wildland areas and conditions associated with wildland
areas The integrity of ecosystems is also influenced
by the presence of people and their activities.
a rule set was deveioped that reiated urban-rurai
classes to FS and BLM vegetation groups (table
7.7). This relationship assumes a higher risk is
• j • i_ r
j
•
i
associated with forested vegetation groups than
.,
,
.° J L - U
c
with non-forested vegetation types
and a higher
. . . . .
. °
. . 'r.
°
risk with increasing population
densities,
°r r
,-,,
j • n • i
A
•
j
• i
Trends in Risks Associated With
Human-ecological Interaction
• Qn FS. ^
Trends ^ risR w ecol ical in
BLM-administered land from interactions with
^ and trends in risks ^ human ^^ from
_
^
ps
BLM-administered lands were assumed to
^ ^ ^^ urban.mral classes
shift in ^^
^ trends ^
oshe ecological integrity. In
aj> ^ rdationshi ^^
that if urban.
^ dasses become higher ^ tf tfends [n ecojog,
_,
T> • i
A
•
J
• L
Current ^kS
Associated With
Human-Wllaland Interaction
,V7
., , r
, . , .,,, , .
r
We considered four population/wildland interface
,
~,
-LI
j
classes. 1 he areas with moderate or greater road
, ..
...
^r> -i j.
/• i
r
densities within a 60 mile radius or the metropoh, D •
i -c j
u- u
tan areas in the Basin were classified as very high.
The concept was to identify the areas likely to be
inhabited by commuting residents and experiencing strong pressure to expand subdivisions, developed recreation sites, and other structures. Areas
with more than 1,000 persons were mapped using
a 10- to 30-mile radius depending on the population of the city. Areas with fewer than 1,000 persons were classified as low, while the degree of
overlap of the city buffers with each other resulted
in moderate or high levels. Societal risk to ecological integrity and risk to human assets from interactions with wildland was estimated using a rule set
that related population density to forest, non-forest, and agricultural wildland vegetation groups.
Higher population densities in proximity to forest
and rangeland vegetation types were rated as having higher risk than low population density areas.
'Ca^ i^egrityare negative, then trends in risks generaiiy increase (table 7.8). Future urban-rural classes (table 7.9) were based on projected population
densities (very
low, low, moderate, and high)
that
D
, , J,
. ., . _,.
. ..
were calculated fc o r each subbasm. 1 h e underlying
.
, .
,
.,. , „ .
r
rpro ections or population change within the basin
' ,
/•»*,-. i
ITT
nnn/-\
were taken from McCool and Haynes (1996).
'
n
i
j TX«
Results
™d DlSCUSSlOn
FioodS) wildfire, road slumping, culvert plugging,
cougars frequenting backyards, and deer and elk
damaging ornamental shrubs are all examples of
increasing risks associated with living in close
proximity to wildland areas. Generally the more
wiid the ^
the higner the risk> and the more
human populations increase in close proximity to
wildland areas the greater the risk. A symmetric
relationship was assumed to exist concerning the
l[s^ to tne integrity of wildland areas from human
influence and the risks faced by humans in proximity to wM^d areas. Road building, fishing,
camping, hiking, wood cutting, berry picking, and
developed recreation sites are all examples of activities that tend to increase in wildland areas in close
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Table 7.6 — Societal risk to ecological integrity from human interactions and risk to human assets from
wildland areas.
Urban-Rural Classes
Forest vegetation types
Non-forest vegetation types
Agricultural types
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Moderate
Very high
Very high
High
Table 7.7 - Risk to FS- and BLM-administered land ecological integrity from human interactions and
risks to human assets from FS- and BLM-administered lands.
Urban-Rural Classes
FS/BLM Forest vegetation types
FS/BLM Non-forest vegetation types
FS/BLM Other
Non-FS/BLM
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
Moderate
Low
Low
None
High
Moderate
Low
None
High
High
Moderate
None
Very high
Very high
High
None
Table 7.8 - Trends in risk to FS- and BLM-administered land ecological integrity from human interactions and trends in risks to human assets from FS- and BLM-administered lands under conditions of
increasing, stable, and decreasing ecological integrity trends.
_.
.•
Ecological Integrity
+3
+2
+1
0
-1
-2
-3
Future Urban-Rural Classes
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
Decreasing
Decreasing
Decreasing
Decreasing
No Change
No Change
No Change
Decreasing
Decreasing
No Change
No Change
Increasing
Increasing
Increasing
No Change
No Change
Increasing
Increasing
Increasing
Increasing
Increasing
Increasing
Increasing
Increasing
Increasing
Increasing
Increasing
Increasing
Table 7.9 — Future urban-rural class given population increase class and current urban-rural class.
Current Urbanrural class
Low
Future Population Density Class
Moderate
High
Very high
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Very High
Low
High
High
Very High
High
Very high
Very High
Very High
Moderate
High
Very High
Very High
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
861
Figure 7.5 - Societal risk of human-ecological interaction: percent of the Basin with low, moderate, high, or very high risk associated with the management of human ecological interactions.
proximity to population centers. The larger the
population center, the higher the activity levels.
These activities tend to create risk to ecological
integrity. Recreation tends more toward developed
site recreation while still supporting increased dispersed recreation.
Risks associated with the interaction of urban and
wildland areas are associated with the six major
metropolitan areas within the Basin (Boise,
Nampa/Caldwell, Missoula, Spokane, Kennewick/
Pasco/Richland, and Yakima). Missoula, Boise,
Nampa/Caldwell, and Yakima are in close proximity to FS- and BLM-administered lands and therefore are anticipated to have a greater risk associated with the interface of FS- and BLM-administered wildlands than Spokane or Kennewick/
Pasco/Richland. Spokane does have substantial
wildland interface risks, but they are mostly associated with private land. Kennewick/Pasco/
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Richland is a mixture of wildland and agricultural
interfaces. Where these metropolitan areas are in
close proximity to high integrity wildlands, risks
to the maintenance or improvement of integrity
would be high. Likewise these metropolitan areas
would pose greater risk to areas of high integrity
in close proximity than to areas of low integrity,
suggesting the need for additional emphasis to
manage the risks to attain and maintain high ecological integrity.
Considering all land within the Basin, approximately 58 percent of the area is classed as low
urban/rural class with approximately 23 percent
classed as high or very high. This reflects die low
density of population within much of the Basin.
Translating this societal risk to ecological integrity
from interactions with humans and the risk to
human assets from wildland areas, about 58 percent of the Basin has low risk and 21 percent has
high or very high risk (Figure 7.5). Thus the
majority of the area in the Basin would be viewed
as having low risk from a societal standpoint.
Risks vary by location with very high risk associated with die major metropolitan areas in the Basin
(map 7.10). Using this as a frame of reference,
the view from a FS or BLM manager's frame of
reference would be slightly different (map 7.11
and fig. 7.6). Removing the non FS- and BLMadministered lands from consideration and recalculating the risk to ecological integrity from
human interactions and the risk to human assets
from wildlands, shifts to greater risk in general.
On FS- and BLM-administered lands nearly 50
percent of the land is classed as moderate risk
while about 19 percent is classed as high or very
high. Thus, from the FS/BLM perspective there
are more risks involved with managing the wild-
land areas than might be viewed by society as a
whole. Forested vegetation occurring in areas of
moderate urban-rural classes results in high risk
from the FS and BLM manager's perspective,
while society might consider this as a moderate
risk to all ownerships.
Managing risks in areas where populations are
increasing becomes more complex as fewer options
for treatment become available. Managing smoke
from prescribed fire, reducing tree densities in
areas with high scenic values, fencing riparian areas
frequented by recreationists, and allowing flooding
to occur naturally in stream channels are all examples of increasing complexity as human populations increase in proximity to wildland areas.
Nearly 60 percent of the Basin is rated as having
low composite integrity (see map 7.1) with only
Figure 7.6 - FS/BLM risk of human-ecological interaction: percent of FS- and BLM-administered land with very high, high,
moderate, and low risk associated with the management of human ecological interactions.
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
17 percent rated as high. The interaction across
ownerships is important to consider as new management direction is proposed. Over 80 percent of
the area rated as having high composite ecological
integrity is on FS- and BLM-administered lands.
If the long-term goal is to maintain high integrity
areas and move more area into the high integrity
class, FS- and BLM-administered lands become
important resource areas because of their integrity.
The increasing population of the Basin results in
trends toward more risks to ecological integrity
from human interactions and risks to human
assets from wildlands across each alternative (maps
7.12 through 7.18). This despite the stable or
favorable trends in ecological integrity projected
for Alternatives 4 and 6. All alternatives show at
least 20 percent increasing risks; Alternatives 1
and 5 show more than 50 percent increasing risk.
Alternative 1 shows no areas of decreasing risk.
The areas generally showing increasing trends in
risk are those near major population centers where
populations are expected to increase rapidly, and
in areas associated with downward trends in ecological integrity. [Alternatives 4 and 6 were projected to have stable or improving trends in ecological integrity, thus increasing risks in human
ecological interactions are associated with increasi •
i In
T Alternatives
Ai
• 1i andjcu5 where
ing populations.]
u
•
i
u
•
- jdeclines
j i - in
•
substantial areas were showing rapid
ecological integrity trends (values of-2 or -3), the
trends in risk are originating from both increasing
population and declining ecological integrity
trends.
Risks to integrity are shown as increasing even in
areas composed mostly of existing wilderness. This
implies that human-ecological interactions in
these areas result in increasing risk to ecological
integrity if ecological integrity trends are decreasing. The arguments are that declining ecological
integrity would place people at greater risk (more
uncertain outcomes for flood, wildfire, and other
events) and that people interacting with these
areas would be increasing the risk to integrity
(camping along streams that are not improving in
integrity, more people accessing the wildland
areas, increasing probability of noxious weed
664
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
spread, and other risks). If ecological integrity is
trending upward, the system is more resilient and
trends in risk to human assets and risk to ecological integrity from human use would be less,
...
.
.
. . . .
Even wlth
,
improving trends ,n ecological mtegri?>"
^0 ecol°glcal integrity from people and
nsks to human assets fr m wlldland areas
°
™U be
nciea!
'
^ due to population increases in the
Basin. 1 hus, rS and BLM managers can anticipate that managing for ecological integrity will
involve managing increasing risks from the association of people with wildland areas and risks to
human assets from wildland areas.
_.
. ,.
..„
TherLe 1ST llttle dlfferen<;e between the alternatives
[°r the rlntefate 90 (Spokane, WashmgtonMissoula Montana) or Interstate 84 (Ontario,
Oregon-Twin Falls, Idaho) corridors. Alternatives
?, 4, 6, and 7 generally do make a difference by
lowering the risks ,n the area east of die Cascades
and ln the a ea w< r
f
? of Yellowstone National Park,
^sks ^ ecological integrity in the Kennewick/
Pasco/Richland area with its large private: land
base
^c
j 5^ r
'Tm?flfected ^ *c
van us
° ^ and BLM futures. In the area east of
*c ^0^5 thfe are ™>al,ea^west of Yakima,
Washington and east of Bend, Oregon) where a
6growing
& human population may
7 overwhelm
ft.
. . . , . ,
management
attempts
to
lower
risks within the
&
K
.
ternatives.
There are three additional geographic regions
where different land management approaches are
unable to alter the risks to ecosystems and where
increasing human populations are not the source
of increased risks. These are the areas east of
Missoula Montana along the continental divide,
£c area f rom °Tntano' °£f °un to B0^er C^'
Ore on
g ^
In«rsta« Highway 84) and the
area fUrther east of Bend, Oregon. In these areas
the level of restora
«on actlons envisioned in the
alternatives are inadequate to reverse the mcreasm trends m ecolo cal and human sks
g
g'
" Risks to human assets from wildland areas and
risks to ecological integrity are not restricted to
metropolitan areas. Much of the Basin is expected
to remain rural where risks are associated with res-
idents, and remain in primitive areas where risks
are associated with visitors. Local publics would
be expected to continue to express preferences for
stability in scenery and lobby to have projects put
in someone else's backyard. Recreation use is
expected to increase sharply, leading to greater
conflicts between recreation use and land management actions including the issue of road closures.
The proportion of the Basin that is sparsely populated and where Federal agencies are a visible part
of the communities is projected to change very
little and would continue to place demands on
Federal resources to be part of their community
infrastructures. This would be the case especially
in the area of risk management, where these counties have fewer resources to address risks or assist
in control of natural events such as wildfire, flood,
and insect outbreaks than exist in the more heavily populated areas.
FS/BLM Management Risk to Ecological Integrity from the Urban-Rural Interface
Trends by Alternative for FS/BLM administered lands
Figure 7.7 - Trends in risk to human assets and ecological integrity projected for each alternative for FS- and BLM-administered
lands.
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Map 7.10 - Level of societal risk associated with interactions of human and ecological systems.
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Map 7.11 - Level of risk associated with the management of human ecological interactions on FS- and BLM-administered lands.
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Map 7.12 - Long-term trends in risk of human ecological interaction on FS- and BLM-administered lands only: Alternative 1.
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Map 7.13 - Long-term trends in risk of human ecological interacuon on FS- and BLM-administered lands only: Alternative 2.
Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
Continue