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 how humans organize themselves both in a comin stabilizing or reversing negative trends in ecolog- munity sense and how they relate to their bioical integrity for FS- and BLM-administered lands. physical environment. One overarching feature of

Widi more detailed and aggressive management it this perspective is the speed at which human cornmay be possible to project improving trends for munities, interests, values, and economies change,

some of the lands now predicted to be stable in Given this feature, one useful relatively permanent

these alternatives. The outcomes are inter-linked administrative feature is the county. We observe

and would require additional analysis to determine that counties and available county data can be

the net effects. The basic strategies contained in used to describe broad trends in socioeconomic

Alternatives 4 and 6 include additional prioritiza- resiliency. Another powerful argument for considtion of management actions directed specifically at ering counties is their role as political entities in a

restoring ecological systems, managing vegetation political system that simultaneously relates federwithin the capabilities of the biophysical environ- al/state/local interactions,

ment, and attempting to achieve vegetation structure and composition consistent with the long-term Current SocioeCOnomiC Resiliency

disturbance processes operating on the landscape.

Socioeconomic resiliency draws from measures of

SOCial and ECOnOmiC social and economic resiliency separately (Quigley

__ ... and others 1996). These measures can be comIfeSIIIGnCj bined into a single measure and used to assess the

Both social and economic resiliency measure the

 EIS

 alternatives. This composite rating combines

adaptability of human systems. Social resiliency *"*

 factors

 ** «« included in discussions of

was measured using four composite factors: civic

 soclal

 **d economic resiliency: population density

infrastructure (leadership, preparedness for (defined as population per square mile), economic

change); economic diversity; social/cultural diversi- resiliency (defined as diversity of economic sectors),

ty (population size, mix of skills); and amenity ^ llfesty

le

 diversity (see Haynes and Home, in

infrastructure (attractiveness of the community Press'

 for a more detalled

 discussion). We assigned

and surrounding area). Economic resiliency was "* socioeconomic resiliency ratings based on the

measured by the diversity among employment sec-

 sum of the total ratings for each of

 ^ *«*

 factors

tors (using the Shannon-Weaver index). People in

 where each was

 wogMed equally. The ratings were

highly resilient counties are assumed to have ready developed for each of the 100 counties in the Basin

access to a range of employment opportunities if (maP

 7

'

9

)' Counties are one of the few permanent

specific firms or business sectors experience down- geographic features of human systems,

turns. Much like the biophysical components of L<,W socioeconomic resiliency rating — This

the ecosystem, social and economic resiliency are includes the Basin counties with low population

affected by the size of the area measured (commu- density (< 11 people per square mile)) low or medi.

mty, county, or trade regions) but reflect human um economic resiliency and low or medium lifeideas about the landscape rather than hydrologic styie diversity. There are 54 counties in the Basin

subbasins. In general, larger units display greater in this categorv. These counties account for 68 pereconomic diversity (and by extension, economic cent of tne area but only 18 percent of the populaand social resiliency) than smaller areas. Further, tion. ^ shown in map 7.9, many of the counties

since resiliency attempts to measure a capacity for traditionally thought of as agricultural are in this

human response, classifications of either social or category. There are 14 counties that have medium

economic resiliency serve as relative estimates of economic resiliency, but most of them are among

adaptability, rather than absolute descriptors. the least densely populated counties in the Basin

When we look at the Basin from the socioeco- (fewer ^ 6 Pe°Ple Per s<l

uare mile) *nd most

nomic perspective our basic frame of reference is

 contam FS' ^d BLM-administered lands.

Integrity, Resiliency, Risk 855
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 — locate in these areas. That is, some people choose

This includes the 20 Basin counties with mostly these counties specifically because they are sparsely

medium economic resiliency ratings and generally settled.

medium or high lifestyle diversity or population .„, . . , ,. . . ...

• • • n • • i j vi- 11- we caution against concluding that unu to high rut- density ratines. Exceptions include Klickitat coun- . * /// • i • i • i i i • -I- j i- i tngs are equivalent to bad to mod ran ngs; the intent

ty, which has low economic resiliency and high . * .

 7

.. . , , .,.* ii-i - r

,-r i j. . _]/•-> • L- L L is to describe the adaptability or vulnerability or

hrestyle diversity; and Cassia county, which has . . / i i i

W i • j • L. j- • these counties, not to rate them as good or bad.

population density but medium economic „ „ r , , . . ° „ . ,_„„..

j IT r j- • u i L u i Generally, most or the people in the Basin (82%)

and hrestyle diversity. Baker county has the lowest .. . ' . . <• , • , • , i • j • • u j • i i r livem

 counties that are medium or high in the

population density ratings, but a medium level or . r , .... .. ° .

. •!• n • j- degree or adaptability, as measured by socioecoeconomic resiliency rerlecting a diverse economy, ° . ...

 r

 ,r -, -.\ »* r ii i i i i . L II n-r i j- a • nomic resiliency (rig. 7.3). Most or the land area

and the highest level or hrestyle diversity rerlecting ,,-„„/ x • i r> • i • • i i

,

0

,., . r. ., ° (68%) in the Basin, however, is in the low categreater adaptability or its social systems. , . ...

gory ror socioeconomic resiliency.

High socioeconomic resiliency rating —

This rating includes the 26 Basin counties that are Trends in Socioeconomic

more densely populated (greater than 11 people Resiliency

per square mile), and have the highest level of

economic resiliency. Counties with high social/ The only component of socioeconomic resiliency

economic resiliency typically have high population in which we have ability to project trends is popudensities, medium economic resiliency, and medi- lation density. But we can use population density

um to high lifestyle diversity values. The excep- as a proxy for socioeconomic resiliency to make

tions to these are Klamath county, which has low some broad assessments about future resiliency

population density but high economic resiliency trends. We can do this because economic resiliency,

and high lifestyle diversity and Silver Bow county lifestyle diversity and population density vary

that has low economic resiliency, but high popula- directly with each other. That is, these factors seem

tion density and high lifestyle diversity. High to be collinear which suggests that any one of these

lifestyle diversities in these two counties suggest three factors can be used as a proxy for the others.

that there are higher infrastructure values than the Annn/ u i • run - 21

, . . °. . . As or 1994, the population or the Basin was 3.1

l o wr r population densities would suggest. .11- nr - • • U L

 °° million. Population projections suggest that the

This approach recognizes the 44 (of 100) counties Basins 100 counties may have 6.0 million people

with very low (less than 6 people per square mile) by 2040 (McCool and Haynes 1996). This is a

population densities, sometimes called "frontier growth rate higher than the population growth

counties." Typically these counties have low rate for the United States as a whole. In these prosocioeconomic resiliency, and include many of the jections, the population density ratings for 61

60 Basin counties labeled "federal" in the sense counties remained unchanged. The remaining 39

that more than 33 percent of their area is in feder- counties shifted to a higher category of population

al ownership. The interest in identifying these so- density. Figure 7.4 illustrates these trends in terms

called "frontier counties" is a concern that they of both the distribution of population density catmay lack sufficient population to sustain existing egories by population and by area. By 2040, nearservices or to develop necessary social services. A ly 80 percent of the population (up from 60 perrelated concern is whether they are able to main- cent currently) is projected to live in relatively

tain the existing infrastructure both in the physi- urbanized environments. The proportion of the

cal sense and in the social sense, especially in the people living in the most rural parts of the Basin

sense of community. One example is counties that falls by 50 percent. The area in the lowest populaare too sparse to sustain a medical clinic. This rel- tion density category changes from 68 percent to

ative isolation also stimulates some people to 45 percent of the Basin.

Integrity, Resiliency, Risk 85?