LEARNING FROM THE LAND n SOCIAL SCIENCES Using ... - fs.fed.us · PDF fileUSDA Forest Service Seattle, WA Linda E. Kruger Pacific Northwest Research Station ... impacts of community/resource

Lilieholm, Tessema, Blahna, and Kruger

LEARNING FROM THE LAND n SOCIAL SCIENCES

447

Using Agency Permit Data to Describe Community/Resource Linkages in Utah’s Grand Staircase-Escalante National MonumentRobert J. LilieholmSchool of Forest ResourcesUniversity of Maine249 Nutting HallOrono, ME 04469-5755Phone: (207) 581-2896Fax: (207) [email protected]

Mekbeb E. TessemaDepartment of Environment and SocietyUtah State UniversityLogan, UT

Dale J. BlahnaPacific Northwest ResearchStationUSDA Forest ServiceSeattle, WA

Linda E. KrugerPacific Northwest ResearchStationUSDA Forest ServiceJuneau, AK

Rural communities in the West are often highly dependent upon surrounding public lands for a wide range of natural resource-based goods, services, and activities. When it comes to planning and management, public land management agencies are mandated to consider the welfare of these communities, but oftentimes are limited in their ability to fully describe and understand the socioeconomic impacts of community/resource linkages at the local or sub-county level. This paper demonstrates how readily available agency permit data collected by the Bureau of Land Management can be used to help describe how communities surrounding Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument depend upon and use Monument resources. We also offer guidelines for improving the quality and usefulness of agency permit data.

Keywords: economics, grazing, land use, public lands, resource dependence, social impact assessment, spatial data, sustainability

Introduction

Resource Dependence in Rural Communities

Many rural communities are dependent upon nearby public lands for a variety of natural resource-based goods and

services. These range from market-based resources like forest products, minerals, and livestock for-age, to recreational opportunities and a host of environmental services (Flora and Flora 2004).

Community/resource linkages are particularly important in many areas of the rural West, where local economic dependence on public lands is particularly acute due to the limited availability of private lands, an arid and marginally-productive resource base, limited economic diversification, and high levels of social and economic isolation (Gray et al. 2001).

Since their establishment in the first half of the 20th Century, federal land management agencies have considered the effects of management on the long-term health and sustainability of the natural

ABSTRACT


SOCIAL SCIENCES n LEARNING FROM THE LAND

448

resources under their charge. More recently, agen-cies like the USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and USDA Forest Service operate under a number of mandates to also consider the effects of management on the socioeconomic well-being of nearby communities. Examples include the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Resources Planning Act (1974), the National Forest Management Act (1976), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (1976). These laws require socioeconomic assessments of nearby communities, as well as an analysis of the social effects of agency decisions (Dana and Fairfax 1980).

Despite these mandates, there is little agency guidance as to the types of data and analytic pro-cesses that should be used to generate managerial-ly useful social information. Also absent are guide-lines describing the types of data that can serve a useful role in the on-going monitoring needed to support adaptive management practices (Geisler 1993, Endter-Wada et al. 1998, Stankey et al. 2003, Keough and Blahna 2006). As a result, while public land management agencies have historically done a thorough job of considering the biological and physical impacts of alternative management scenarios, most agencies lag far behind in their analysis and use of social science data. This is particularly true when it comes to understanding the impacts of resource planning decisions on local communities. For example, most socioeconomic analyses of community impacts rely on county-level data and economic input-output models like IMPLAN that, due to data aggregation and disclo-sure requirements, may fail to accurately describe community/resource linkages at the local or sub-county level (Sullivan 1997, Minnesota IMPLAN Group Inc. 2004).

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

Utah’s 1.9-million-acre Grand Staircase-Es-calante National Monument (GSENM or Monu-ment) was established in 1996 by an Executive Order issued by President Bill Clinton (Bureau of Land Management 1999). The Monument lies within Garfield and Kane Counties and is sur-

rounded by 13 small, resource-dependent com-munities (Table 1). These communities have relied on extracting natural resources from surrounding lands for nearly 150 years. Historically, these communities have been heavily dependent upon livestock grazing (currently cattle but in past years sheep as well), and the cutting of woodland trees for firewood, posts, and poles (Sullivan 1997). Pri-vate lands with access to irrigation water provided an agricultural base for local communities, as well as winter feed for livestock.

In addition to these traditional land uses, tourism has been a long-standing yet oftentimes overlooked economic driver for local communities (Sullivan 1997). Indeed, the Grand Canyon was first protected in 1908 as a national monument, followed by Zion (1909), Bryce Canyon (1923), and Capitol Reef (1937). In the 1920s and 1930s, a popular trip by motor coach took tourists through many of these landscapes and provided jobs and income for local residents and businesses.

When GSENM was created in 1996, local

opposition was intense, and animosities have lingered due to concerns over the potential loss of traditional livelihoods like cattle grazing, as well as diminished prospects for future economic development through oil and gas leasing and coal mining on the Monument’s Kaiparowits Plateau. These concerns are particularly acute given that less than 5% of the region’s land base is privately owned, and limited forage production requires ex-tensive areas to provide even a modest economic return from livestock grazing.

Today, recreation and tourism have become the major economic drivers in the region, although traditional extractive uses continue to dominate the psyche of most locals. Indeed, over the last 25 years, job growth in Garfield and Kane Counties’ service sector has far outpaced growth in other sectors, especially traditional resource sectors like mining, agriculture, and forest products (Figure 1). At the same time, inflation-adjusted wages have been falling since at least the early 1980s, and incomes expressed as a percent of the overall state average have steadily declined to the point that resident income is now one-third lower than the



449

CommunityDate

Settled2005 Population

(estimate)Economy

Bigwater, UT 1950s 415

Originally named Glen Canyon City, this small community with limited services began as a construction camp for workers build-ing Glen Canyon Dam. Bigwater recently attracted the attention of a large, international resort developer due to its location near GSENM and Lake Powell. The town also hosts one of GSENM’s five visitor centers.

Boulder, UT 1889 179

Small, isolated community dependent upon natural resources. Limited retail and lodging services. Boulder is attracting retirees and amenity seekers due to its scenic beauty and location near GSENM.

Cannonville, UT 1870s 135Small, isolated community dependent upon natural resources. Very limited retail services. Home to one of GSENM’s visitor centers.

Escalante, UT 1875 744

Mid-level retail services based on tourism and natural resources. Escalante has begun to attract amenity-based businesses and resi-dents due to its scenic beauty and location near GSENM. The town is also home to GSENM’s main visitor center.

Fredonia, AZ 1885 1,051

Some tourism potential due to Fredonia’s location on the highway to the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. The closure of Kaibab For-est Products’ sawmill in the mid-1990s resulted in significant job losses and socioeconomic distress.

Glendale, UT 1871 342Small, isolated community dependent upon natural resources. No retail services.

Henrieville, UT 1877 144Small, isolated community dependent upon natural resources. No retail services.

Kanab, UT 1870 3,516

Kane County seat. Relatively well developed economic base due to tourism, travel along US Highway 89, and its role as a local service center. Kanab hosts GSENM’s Headquarters, as well as one of its visitor centers.

Mount Carmel, UT(Originally Winsor)

1864 116Small rural community dependent upon natural resources and tourism from nearby Zion National Park.

Orderville, UT 1870 586Small, isolated community dependent upon natural resources and tourism. Limited retail services.

Page, AZ 1950s 6,794

Located in Arizona’s Coconino County, Page’s relatively large and well-diversified economy is based on transportation services, recreation and tourism, and nearby Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam.

Panguitch, UT 1864 1,477Garfield County seat. Government offices, mid-sized economic base serving transportation, tourism, and natural resource-based industries.

Tropic, UT 1892 463

Gateway to Bryce Canyon National Park. Most developed economy in Bryce Valley, but still small even by regional standards. Mostly tourism based, with several motels, restaurants, and bed and breakfasts.

Table 1. Socioeconomic profiles of communities located near GSENM (U.S. Census).

state’s average. Moreover, unemployment is twice Utah’s average of about 4%, and can rise to nearly 25% in tourism’s off-season.

Given local attitudes and the dependence of nearby communities on public lands, any change

in land ownership, agency oversight, or manage-ment policy has the potential to impact the welfare of local communities. For example, policy changes in the late 1980s led to large declines in timber harvest levels on national forests across the West – with severe social and economic consequences for



450

many timber-dependent communities (Kusel 2001, Baker and Kusel 2003). Current efforts by the BLM to address concerns over rangeland health and the sustainability of grazing practices stoke fears of a similar fate in many ranching commu-nities. Indeed, the widespread local resistance to environmental protection efforts in the rural West is largely driven by concerns over the potential loss of access to natural resources. And while the Monument’s establishment in 1996 retained lands under BLM’s multiple use oversight, it also expanded the region’s primary focus from grazing and mining, to the protection of unique scientific and historical resources to be managed for current and future generations.

Given the high levels of interdependence between public lands and surrounding communi-ties, it is important that public land management agencies understand local community/resource linkages. Such an understanding can help agen-cies: (1) solicit public input in the design of management alternatives; (2) assess the impacts of proposed management or policy changes; (3) de-sign mitigation practices in the event that proposed changes are likely to present challenges for nearby communities; and (4) provide baseline data and a

rationale for the design of socioeconomic monitor-ing efforts.

In this paper we demonstrate how existing secondary data like agency-issued permit informa-tion can be used to spatially describe community/resource linkages in the GSENM region – here defined as Kane and Garfield Counties, the Monu-ment, and the dozen or so small rural communities that share this landscape. The approach reveals a host of advantages. Foremost is the general avail-ability and low cost of permit data. Also important is the community-level detail – a level of resolu-tion often lacking in state and federal socioeco-nomic data. We conclude with some observations on the limitations of permit data, and on how agency data collection efforts might be enhanced to further the goal of improving the identification, understanding, and measurement of community/resource linkages.

MethodologyCommunity/resource linkages and dependen-

cies are many and complex (see Kruger 2003), and

Figure 1. Employment by sector for Garfield County, 1950-2000 (FIRE includes Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; TCPU includes Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities) (U.S. Census 2000).



451

several descriptive typologies have been proposed in the literature. Building on the work of Beckley (2003), McCool (2003) developed a model of how communities are “embedded” within broader social and biophysical environments. Identify-ing specific links between a community and the broader environment is important for understand-ing how natural, social, or institutional changes may influence a community. At this broad level, McCool (2003) hypothesized three general types of community/environment links: (1) instru-mental, (2) cultural-spiritual, and (3) ecological. Instrumental links are the more direct or tangible “products” we obtain from the environment for economic, subsistence, or recreational value (Mc-Cool 2003). Cultural-spiritual links are the sym-bolic values provided by the environment, such as Native American sacred sites and other special places where symbolically important activities or connections to a place occur. Ecological linkages result from the ability of the natural environment to produce resources essential for survival, such as clean air and water.

Endter-Wada and Blahna (2004) presented a different type of community/resource linkage framework. Working from the perspective that federal land management agencies are mandated to provide the public with many types of commu-nity/resource linkage opportunities, they identified five categories of community “linkages to public lands” based on agency legal and policy require-ments: (1) tribal linkages, (2) resource use link-ages, (3) interest linkages, (4) neighboring land linkages, and (5) decision-making linkages.

Of special relevance here are resource use linkages, which are essentially a subset of Mc-Cool’s instrumental links. They are based on laws providing for public access rights to the land and using or collecting resources for personal or com-mercial benefit, such as grazing, camping, hunting and guiding, and collecting firewood and special forest products. While Endter-Wada and Blahna’s resource use linkage category also includes “open use” linkages that do not require permits (e.g., enjoying scenery, picnicking, and hiking) and il-legal uses (e.g., poaching), the data for this study represent only legal and permitted resource use linkages.

In this paper, we focus on instrumental or re-source use linkages as reflected by permits issued to the public by agency district offices. Federal land management agencies issue permits for a variety of uses. These permits – for which the user is typically charged a nominal fee – ensure that the permit-holder is aware of regulations. Permits also enable the agency to monitor the location of activi-ty, and method and intensity of use. Agency permit data have the potential to supplement traditional socioeconomic data sources used to describe com-munity/resource linkages. For example, traditional data sources like the Economic Research Service, The U.S. Census Bureau, and other data gathered and reported by various state, county, and federal agencies generally present data at the county level, and may thus miss important sub-county commu-nity characteristics due to aggregation (Sullivan 1997, Blahna et al. 2003). Agency permit data, on the other hand, are typically community-specific with respect to the permittee or user, and often-times location-specific with respect to the use or activity.

In GSENM, permits are required for a wide range of uses (e.g., grazing, certain recreational activities, and the cutting of trees for firewood, poles, and fence posts). These permits are readily available for analysis and mapping on a regu-lar basis, and can be used to evaluate the social impacts of agency plans and management deci-sions. Permit data collected by Monument staff are housed at the various visitor centers, as well as GSENM Headquarters in Kanab, Utah. Some data are available on the GSENM website. The permit activities included in this study are described be-low. In this exploratory paper, we spatially express these data based on the permit holder’s community of residence in order to depict simple and readily available measures of the relationship between communities, resources, and the Monument.

Results

GrazingLivestock grazing has been a dominant use on

the lands within today’s GSENM for nearly 150 years. While the number of animal unit months



452

(AUMs) and livestock have varied over the years, the Monument currently has authorized 76,000 AUMs. The 75 geographically contiguous grazing allotments cover virtually all of the Monument’s 1.9 million acres. Figure 2 shows the number of permittees in communities surrounding the Monu-ment (note that permits held by permittees resid-ing beyond the immediate region were assigned to the GSENM community that serves as the base of ranching operations as determined by BLM personnel). Kanab and Cannonville have the larg-est number of permittees (38 and 37, respectively), followed by Escalante and Boulder.

When these data are adjusted by a communi-ty’s population, however, they convey a different impression. For example, Figure 3 shows that on a per-1,000 resident basis, Cannonville is by far the most dependent on grazing permits, followed by Boulder and Escalante. In fact, Kanab – with the most permittees – has the lowest level of depen-dence when adjusted by the community’s larger population. Figures 4 and 5 show the number of allotments and authorized AUMs, respectively, for each community. Note that while most permittees reside in Kanab and Cannonville (Figure 2), the majority of AUMs (and hence cattle) are associ-ated with ranching operations based in Escalante (Figure 5). As described below, these different

metrics can be used to provide a range of useful information about community/grazing linkages on the Monument.

Special Recreation PermitsRecreational visitation to the Monument and

surrounding areas has increased over the years. Figure 6 shows visitation to southern Utah’s na-tional parks between 1981 and 2005. Visitation at the Monument’s five visitors’ centers is shown in Figure 7. GSENM issues Special Recreation Per-mits (SRP) to local businesses engaged in recre-ation-related commercial use on Monument lands. Examples include guiding services, educational programs, hunting, and photography. On the Mon-ument, the number of SRPs has steadily increased over time, suggesting that the recreational services economy associated with the Monument is gain-ing in strength, size, and diversity. Figure 8 shows the spatial location of these SRPs. As shown in the Figure, businesses serving recreational needs are concentrated in Kanab. Also, SRPs in smaller communities suggest that even though fewer busi-nesses operate from these locations, their contri-bution to local economic activity is likely to be disproportional due to these communities’ smaller, less-diverse economies.

Figure 2. Distribution of GSENM grazing permittees, 2006.



453

Forest ProductsForest products-related activities on GSENM

that require a permit include the cutting of fire-wood, poles, and fenceposts. Given the Monu-ment’s aridity, most of these activities take place in the western Grand Staircase region of GSENM, where pinion pine (Pinus edulis) and Utah juni-per (Juniperus osteosperma) woodlands occupy the more mesic, higher elevation sites. And while these woodlands have supplied forest products to local residents for generations, Figures 9 and 10 reveal the relatively low level of use based on issued permits. Given this low use level, a better representation of this community linkage might be portrayed by aggregating several years’ data, although this might mask any trends in use due to changes in local demand, resource availability, or BLM policy. Alternatively, these data could be dis-played each year through time to reveal temporal trends in this community/resource linkage.

DiscussionThe spatial depiction of agency permit data

presented here provides a unique view of commu-nity/resource use that may not be readily apparent

through commonly used agency practices. And as demonstrated above, accessing, summarizing, and depicting permit data is relatively simple, while the spatial depictions that emerge are a useful tool in understanding how local community/resource linkages and dependence may vary across time, communities, and geographic location.

The utility of spatially depicting permit data can be illustrated through a number of examples. For instance, consider the case where changes to grazing practices are being evaluated. The graz-ing permit data described above are rich in detail, with the numbers of permittees, allotments, and AUMs varying greatly by community. Prospective changes may affect these attributes differently, and hence lead to varying impacts on different com-munities. For example, efforts to reach permit-tees would have the greatest impact in Kanab and Cannonville, where the bulk of local permittees reside (Figure 2). However, if the geographic area impacted by grazing was of interest to the Agency, then efforts would focus on the town of Escalante, where a relatively small number of permittees con-trol a majority of GSENM’s AUMs (Figure 5).

Agency permit data can supplement more

commonly used socioeconomic data to better

Figure 3. Distribution of GSENM grazing permittees, 2006 (permits per 1,000 residents).



454

Figure 4. Distribution of GSENM grazing allotments, 2006.

Figure 5. Distribution of GSENM authorized AUMs, 2006.

anticipate local impacts. For example, changes that adversely affect the profitability of ranching operations are more likely to have greater effect in small, isolated communities like Boulder and Can-nonville, instead of Kanab – the county seat with a larger and more diversified economic base.

It is also important to recognize that the permit data described here represents a subset of the data that may be available for a particular area. For example, we did not consider hunting and fish-ing permits, back country use permits issued to individual campers, water rights, easements and right-of-ways, or permits to collect geological,



455

biological, or paleontological specimens. Spatially depicting each of these uses would create addi-tional sets of community/resource linkages that might have relevance to various aspects of Monu-ment management. These linkages would also likely reveal a much larger sphere of influence by spatially locating permittees from distant counties, communities, and states.

Agency employment, while not considered here, is another important linkage between pub-lic lands and the economic health of nearby rural communities. For example, federal jobs associated with public lands may be seasonal or year-round,

and often require advanced levels of education that attract highly skilled individuals and their families to rural areas. Year-round jobs provide steady income, relatively high pay, and health and retirement benefits – highly desirable features increasingly missing from private sector jobs and oftentimes altogether absent from rural labor mar-kets. Such benefits are increasingly important in Garfield and Kane Counties, where average local wages have steadily fallen as compared to state averages over the last 25 years.

Unfortunately, the widespread lack of recog-nition by agency personnel of the potential value

Figure 6. Visitation to Utah national parks, 1981-2005.

Figure 7. Visitation to GSENM visitor centers, 1996-2006.



456

of permit data for conducting community social assessments may inadvertently lead to incomplete recording of forms, poor record-keeping, and a lack of standardization that might limit subsequent use and application. Recent efforts to standardize permit data through the USDA Forest Service’s INFRA database, Timber Information Manager (TIM), and Special Uses Database System (SUDS) are important first-steps in this direction. In ad-

dition, ensuring that permits include information about location of permitted use, amount of re-sources used, and economic values would greatly enhance the usefulness of the data collected. For example, some agency permits for firewood cut-ting include the number of cords and economic value of the wood being cut, but many others do not.

Figure 8. Distribution of GSENM Special Recreation Permits, FY96-97 through FY04-05.

Figure 9. Distribution of GSENM post and pole permits, 2006.



457

We also suggest coordination between land management agencies to standardize both the types of information collected, as well as the databases where this information is housed. This would allow for a more complete identification of community linkages to public lands. For example, in our study region some residents of Boulder cut firewood on the Dixie National Forest, some on the Monument, and some on both. Moreover, the Dixie National Forest includes permits for camp-ground use and Christmas tree cutting, while the Monument does not. Ecosystem-based manage-ment necessitates interagency coordination, and the standardization of permit requirements across agencies would be a simple and useful step toward realizing this goal.

As recognition of the value of permit data grows, we are hopeful that the INFRA, TIM and SUDS systems might be expanded to include other agencies. Also needed are increased efforts to ensure data integrity and availability, including the mapping of temporal data for determining trends in use. Better staff training concerning the value and use of such data is also an important prereq-uisite in elevating permit data to the same level of importance as biophysical data for land manage-ment planning and decision making.

ConclusionsPermit data collected by public land manage-

ment agencies contain a wealth of information re-garding local community/resource linkages. These data are oftentimes unused in agency planning efforts, yet represent a readily available, low-cost method of describing and understanding how rural communities use and interact with nearby public lands. The growing list of challenges and compet-ing uses facing our public lands suggest the need for a better understanding of community/resource uses and linkages. Meeting these challenges in an environment of diminished agency resources requires that public land managers fully utilize existing data, staff, and resources. The exploratory approach described here using agency permit data represents an important step toward reaching that goal. We hope that in time, these data will begin to realize their full potential in meeting public land management policy objectives by serving a more active role in describing, analyzing, and assess-ing the social and economic impacts of alternative land use policies.

Figure 10. Distribution of GSENM fuelwood permits, 2006.



458

AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to express thanks to Marietta

Eaton, Larry Crutchfield, and several anonymous reviewers for assistance with this project. We would also like to acknowledge financial support from the Maine Sustainable Solutions Initiative (National Science Foundation Grant No. EPS-0904155), and the Human and Natural Resource Interactions Program of the Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station.

ReferencesBaker, M., and J. Kusel. 2003. Community For-

estry in the United States: Learning from the Past, Crafting the Future. Washington, DC: Island Press. 247 pages.

Beckley, T.M. 2003. The relative importance of sociocultural and ecological factors in attach-ment to place. Pages 105-126 in L. Kruger, tech. ed., Understanding Community-Forest Relations. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Techni-cal Report PNW-GTR-566.

Blahna, D.J., D. Carr, and P. Jakes. 2003. Using social community as a measurement unit in conservation planning and ecosystem man-agement. Pages 59-80 in L. Kruger, tech. ed., Understanding Community-Forest Relations. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-566.

Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Man-agement Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah. 111 pages.

Dana, S.T., and S.K. Fairfax. 1980. Forest and Range Policy: Its Development in the United States, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Book Co. 458 pages.

Endter-Wada, J., D.J. Blahna, R. Krannich, and M. Brunson. 1998. A framework for understand-ing social science contributions to ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 8(3): 891-904.

Endter-Wada, J., and D.J. Blahna. 2004. Linkages to public lands: A framework for social as-sessment and impact analysis on public lands. Presentation at the 10th International Sympo-sium on Society and Resource Management, Keystone, CO, June 2-4.

Flora, C.B., and J.L. Flora. 2004. Rural Commu-nities: Legacy and Change, 2nd ed. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 372 pages.

Geisler, C.C. 1993. Rethinking SIA: Why ex ante research isn’t enough. Society and Natural Resources 6:327-338.

Gray, G.J., M.J. Enzer, and J. Kusel. 2001. Under-standing Community-Based Forest Ecosystem Management. The Hawthorn Press, Inc. New York, NY. 447 pages.

Keough, H.L., and D.J. Blahna. 2006. Achieving integrative, collaborative ecosystem manage-ment. Conservation Biology 20(5): 1373-1382.

Kruger L., tech. ed. 2003. Understanding Commu-nity-Forest Relations. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-566.

Kusel, J. 2001. Assessing well-being in forest de-pendent communities. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 13(1/2): 359-384.

McCool, S.F. 2003. Managing natural disturbances and sustaining human communities: Implica-tions of ecosystem-based management of pub-lic lands. Pages 127-143 in L. Kruger, tech. ed., Understanding Community-Forest Rela-tions. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-566.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group Inc. 2004. IMPLAN Pro User’s Guide, v. 2.0. MIG, Stillwater, MN. 414 pages.

Stankey, G.H., B.T. Bormann, C. Ryan, B. Shindler, V. Sturtevant, R.N. Clark, and C. Philpot. 2003. Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan. Journal of Forestry 101: 40-46.

Sullivan, M. 1997. Monitoring Forest Resource Dependence in Southern Utah: Applications to Ecosystem Management. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Utah State University.

Documents

LEARNING FROM THE LAND n SOCIAL SCIENCES Using ... - fs.fed.us · PDF fileUSDA Forest Service Seattle, WA Linda E. Kruger Pacific Northwest Research Station ... impacts of community/resource