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 popula- to forest, rangeland, and watershed conditions

tion, there are likely to be more people in the and management, with little interaction with

high density counties. This is particularly true in prospective human impacts on either management

"recreation" counties that are projected to attract a or changes in the mix of ecosystem goods, serdisproportionate numbers of in-migrants vices, and conditions. Economic resiliency trends

(McCool and Haynes 1996). In terms of socioe- speak to the entire economic system within the

conomic resiliency, this means a continued shift Basin. As such, they include goods, services, and

toward higher socioeconomic resiliency through- conditions from forest and range ecosystems as

out the Basin, with the exception of the "frontier" well as the other parts of the Basin. They also only

counties that are not recreation counties or that speak to the conditions in the first decade of the

have low economic resiliency. None of the 100 planning period (where the trends in ecological

counties are projected to lose population between integrity speak to changes expected in the next

1995 and 2040; less than 10 percent of the coun- 100 years),

ties are projected to have only minor increases. As T . . . . .

other areas become more densely populated, these [n the longTM' population changes are a proxy

few counties (less than 10%) are likely to become J>r expected economic changes m the Basin (see

increasingly isolated and to have difficulty attract-

 Ha

y

nes and Horne' ln

 Prf

s

'.

 fof Potions of

• c j • r\ u u economic activity in the Basin tor some or the

ing infrastructure and investments. On the other .

 7

 .

iji pi i i ma or resources). Projected population shirts over

hand, they are likely to be more apparent as . > <-n in- i i

« c » r i i • i- j the next 50 years suggest the Basin would come to

refuges for people seeking solitude. . r L w/ • u • u L look like much or the West in that it would bePredicting trends for socioeconomic resiliency is come primarily urban. There would still be 45

difficult because of the inherit uncertainty in percent of the Basin's area that would be in the

social systems (because of both the speed at which lowest population class that we call "frontier"

they change and the uncertainties inherit in the counties. Those counties would likely continue to

underlying assumptions). Ten year trends in coun- generate concerns about their ability to provide

ty level economic resiliency that might be attrib- social services without help from State and Federal

uted to the adoption of alternative management governments. It is expected that concerns about

strategies on FS- and BLM-administered lands are social resiliency would be most pronounced in

related to projected population growth, reliance these counties. There is little that FS and BLM

on FS and/or BLM forage, reliance on harvest of managers can do about this. Political factors are

FS and/or BLM timber, recreation opportunities, involved in each particular location in addition to

and initial levels of economic resiliency (see the the socioeconomic trends. Some people choose

Economic chapter of this report for further dis- these counties specifically because they are sparsely

cussion). These trends show 17 counties that settled.

might experience possible change in economic _,... , . . ,. . .

resiliency within the Basin. Weighting these coun- Jhere is often the concern about the link between

ties by the proportion of Basin population they ^uman Conditions and well-being) and the conrepresent shows that only a fraction of the popula-

 dltlon

 of the underlying ecosystems. Comparing

tion might experience a downturn in economic socioeconomic resiliency by area may cause some

resiliency. This is not to downplay the significance

 to c

,

on

.

dude thf PeoPJe m the Basm h^e impovof the potential impacts, but rather to place them

 enshed

 themselves and that ecosystem and human

in perspective. Comparing this small percentage community sustamability is imperiled. Such a

of the population against the relatively large per-

 vlew a<the Basi

.

n levd lefds C° erroneous conclu

-

centage of the Basin area that might experience a sions_ First the forest and rangeland ecosystems do

downturn in ecological integrity can be deceptive. not themselves provide the economic foundations

Ecological integrity trends are judged with respect 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 Agricultural lands were rated with lower risks than

and grass) or exotic (for example wheat or cattle) forest and rangeland areas (table 7.6).

crops o r animals. . ,- , -J-ULC C j lo estimate the risk associated with the rh>- and

DSeir AAttAe0mAH*> UHBMAH BLM-administered portion of the wildland areas, msK Assessment, riuman a rule set was deveioped that reiated urban-rurai

ECOlOglCal Interactions classes to FS and BLM vegetation groups (table

w, , r . , i • i • • 7.7). This relationship assumes a higher risk is We assessed future risk to ecological integrity in • j • i_ r j • i

, . , , 1-1 1 j associated with forested vegetation groups than

relation to people (growth in rural-urban areas and . , c , .° JL- U

\ i . i i i i • • with non-forested vegetation types and a higher

use patterns) and risk to people and their assets in .... . . ° . . 'r. °

.

 r

. .... , rr\_ j i • risk with increasing population densities,

relation to wildland areas. 1 he underlying assump- ° r r

tion is that risk to ecological integrity is generally ,-,, j • n • i A • j • i

higher in proximity to densely populated areas, Trends in Risks Associated With

and risk to people and their assets is generally Human-ecological Interaction

higher in close proximity to wildland areas rather Trends ^ risR w ecol ical in • Qn FS. ^

than to agricultural or urban areas. Natural or BLM-administered land from interactions with

human-induced events that occur within wildland ^ and trends in risks ^ human ^^ from

areas may prove nsky to people, homes, and other ps_ ^ BLM-administered lands were assumed to

assets people value Those risks are related to wild- shift in ^^ ^ ^ ^^ urban.mral classes

land areas and conditions associated with wildland ^ trends ^ oshe ecological integrity. In

areas The integrity of ecosystems is also influenced aj> ^ rdationshi ^^ that if urban.

by the presence of people and their activities. ^ dasses become higher ^ tf tfends [n ecojog,

_, T> • i A • J • L 'Ca^ i^egrityare negative, then trends in risks genCurrent ^kS Associated With eraiiy increase (table 7.8). Future urban-rural classHuman-Wllaland Interaction es (table 7.9) were based on projected population

,V7 . , , r , . , .,,, , . r densities (very low, low, moderate, and high) that We considered four population/wildland interface , ,

 J

, c . ., . _,.

 D

. . .

, ~, -LI j were calculated for each subbasm. 1 he underlying

classes. 1 he areas with moderate or greater road . r , . , . , . , „ .

, .. ... ^r> -i j. /• i r pro ections or population change within the basin

densities within a 60 mile radius or the metropoh-

 r ' , /•»*,- . i ITT nnn/-\

, D • i -c j u- u were taken from McCool and Haynes (1996).

tan areas in the Basin were classified as very high. '

The concept was to identify the areas likely to be n i j TX«

inhabited by commuting residents and experienc-

 Results

 TMd DlSCUSSlOn

ing strong pressure to expand subdivisions, devel- FioodS) wildfire, road slumping, culvert plugging,

oped recreation sites, and other structures. Areas cougars frequenting backyards, and deer and elk

with more than 1,000 persons were mapped using damaging ornamental shrubs are all examples of

a 10- to 30-mile radius depending on the popula- increasing risks associated with living in close

tion of the city. Areas with fewer than 1,000 per- proximity to wildland areas. Generally the more

sons were classified as low, while the degree of wiid the ^ the higner the risk> and the more

overlap of the city buffers with each other resulted human populations increase in close proximity to

in moderate or high levels. Societal risk to ecologi- wildland areas the greater the risk. A symmetric

cal integrity and risk to human assets from interac- relationship was assumed to exist concerning the

tions with wildland was estimated using a rule set l[s^ to tne integrity of wildland areas from human

that related population density to forest, non-for- influence and the risks faced by humans in proxest, and agricultural wildland vegetation groups. imity to wM^d areas. Road building, fishing,

Higher population densities in proximity to forest camping, hiking, wood cutting, berry picking, and

and rangeland vegetation types were rated as hav- developed recreation sites are all examples of activiing higher risk than low population density areas. ties 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

Low Moderate High Very high

Forest vegetation types Low Moderate High Very high

Non-forest vegetation types Low Moderate Moderate Very high

Agricultural types Low Moderate Moderate 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

Low Moderate High Very high

FS/BLM Forest vegetation types Moderate High High Very high

FS/BLM Non-forest vegetation types Low Moderate High Very high

FS/BLM Other Low Low Moderate High

Non-FS/BLM None None None 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.

_. . • Future Urban-Rural Classes

Ecological Integrity Low Moderate High Very high

+3 Decreasing Decreasing No Change Increasing

+2 Decreasing Decreasing No Change Increasing

+1 Decreasing No Change Increasing Increasing

0 Decreasing No Change Increasing Increasing

-1 No Change Increasing Increasing Increasing

-2 No Change Increasing Increasing Increasing

-3 No Change Increasing Increasing Increasing

Table 7.9 — Future urban-rural class given population increase class and current urban-rural class.

Current Urban- Future Population Density Class

rural class Low Moderate High Very high

Low Low Low Moderate High

Moderate Moderate High High Very high

High Moderate High Very High Very High

Very High Very High Very 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/

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

Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
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 wildland 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 spread, and other risks). If ecological integrity is

ownerships is important to consider as new man- trending upward, the system is more resilient and

agement direction is proposed. Over 80 percent of trends in risk to human assets and risk to ecologithe area rated as having high composite ecological cal integrity from human use would be less,

integrity is on FS- and BLM-administered lands. ... . . ... .

If the long-term goal is to maintain high integrity

 Even

 ,

wlth

 improving trends ,n ecological mtegriareas and move more area into the high integrity ?>" ^0 ecol°glcal

 integrity from people and

class, FS- and BLM-administered lands become

 nsks to human assets fr°m wlldland areas

 TMU be

important resource areas because of their integrity. 'nciea!^ due to population increases in the

Basin. 1 hus, rS and BLM managers can anticiThe increasing population of the Basin results in pate that managing for ecological integrity will

trends toward more risks to ecological integrity involve managing increasing risks from the associfrom human interactions and risks to human ation of people with wildland areas and risks to

assets from wildlands across each alternative (maps human assets from wildland areas.

7.12 through 7.18). This despite the stable or _. . ,. ..„

favorable trends in ecological integrity projected Ther

L

e 1S

T

 llttle dlfferen<;e

 between the alternatives

for Alternatives 4 and 6. All alternatives show at [°r the

 r

lntefate

 90 (Spokane, Washmgtonleast 20 percent increasing risks; Alternatives 1 Missoula Montana) or Interstate 84 (Ontario,

and 5 show more than 50 percent increasing risk. Oregon-Twin Falls, Idaho) corridors. Alternatives

Alternative 1 shows no areas of decreasing risk. ?, 4, 6, and 7 generally do make a difference by

The areas generally showing increasing trends in lowering the risks ,n the area east of die Cascades

risk are those near major population centers where

 and ln the afea w<?r

 of Yellowstone National Park,

populations are expected to increase rapidly, and ^sks ^ ecological integrity in the Kennewick/

in areas associated with downward trends in eco- Pasco/Richland area with its large private: land

logical integrity. [Alternatives 4 and 6 were pro-

 base

 ^c j 5^ r 'T

 m

?

flfected

 ^ *c

jected to have stable or improving trends in eco-

 van°us

 ^ and BLM futures. In the area east of

logical integrity, thus increasing risks in human *c ^0^

5 thfe are

 TM>

 al

,

ea^west

 of Yakima,

ecological interactions are associated with increas- Washington and east of Bend, Oregon) where a

i • i T A i • i jcu growing human population may overwhelm ing populations.] In Alternatives 1 and 5 where

 6 & ft- . 7

. . .,. ,

u • i u • -jji - • management attempts to lower risks within the

substantial areas were showing rapid declines in

 &

 .

 K

ecological integrity trends (values of-2 or -3), the ternatives.

trends in risk are originating from both increasing There are three additional geographic regions

population and declining ecological integrity where different land management approaches are

trends. unable to alter the risks to ecosystems and where

Risks to integrity are shown as increasing even in increasing human populations are not the source

areas composed mostly of existing wilderness. This of increased risks. These are the areas east of

implies that human-ecological interactions in Missoula Montana along the continental divide,

these areas result in increasing risk to ecological £c area from °T

ntano' °£f °un to B

0^

er C^'

integrity if ecological integrity trends are decreas-

 Oregon

 ^ In«rsta« Highway 84) and the

ing. The arguments are that declining ecological area fUrther east of Bend, Oregon. In these areas

integrity would place people at greater risk (more

 the level of restora«on actlons

 envisioned in the

uncertain outcomes for flood, wildfire, and other alternatives are inadequate to reverse the mcreasevents) and that people interacting with these

 mg trends m ecolog'cal and human

 "sks-

areas would be increasing the risk to integrity Risks to human assets from wildland areas and

(camping along streams that are not improving in risks to ecological integrity are not restricted to

integrity, more people accessing the wildland metropolitan areas. Much of the Basin is expected

areas, increasing probability of noxious weed to remain rural where risks are associated with res664 Integrity, Resiliency, Risk
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