Social conditions are fundamentally influenced by economic conditions, which may influence market values such as the growth or development of employment and income, and nonmarket values such as air quality, wildlife, recreation values, and other resources that improve or detract from social conditions and quality of life. The economic sectors in the Planning Area that are most likely to be directly affected by BLM management actions are related to the service sector (e.g., accommodation and food services used by people visiting the area for recreation or temporary work) and resource development activities (e.g., oil and gas). This does not imply that grazing, ranching, and other agricultural activities are unaffected or unimportant. However, based on their economic contribution to the overall economy, changes in the agricultural sector would be expected to produce relatively minor direct impacts in the overall economy. Nevertheless, the agricultural sector in the Planning Area is influential in terms of community character and identity. Thus, land management decisions affecting the agricultural sector may result in important impacts to the social structure in the Planning Area even though the economic impacts are expected to be minimal.

Table 4-20 provides a summary of impacts on social conditions as discussed in this section for the alternatives. Although the table attempts to summarize impacts and characterize them as low, medium, or high, it does not classify these impacts as beneficial or adverse. Social impacts seen as beneficial to some people and groups may be seen as adverse to others. For instance, increased emphasis on resource conservation in Alternative B would result in a change from the current uses, which may be seen as a beneficial impact by wilderness advocates, but an adverse impact by oil and gas development and livestock grazing interests. In Table 4-20, high impacts are those that would result in substantial changes to an existing condition in a way that would affect a large number of people and/or endure for a long period of time; no high impacts were identified during this analysis. Low impacts are those that would affect a limited number of people and for a limited period of time. Medium impacts are intermediate and fall between high and low impacts.

Under all alternatives, the social condition is expected to change. However, the greatest impact on social conditions under Alternative B would be from reduced oil and gas development and livestock grazing and increased emphasis on resource conservation and recreational opportunities. Under Alternative C, the greatest impact on social conditions would result from decreased restrictions on oil and gas development compared to the other alternatives, which would bring more job opportunities, greater demand for community services, and greater tax revenues to local governments—allowing them to expand community services to meet the needs of a slightly higher population. Alternative D balances management emphasis between resource conservation and resource use, but is generally closer in line with resource use and development.

Source: Based on the analysis of impacts to social conditions, as described in the text.